jp_lit_search_illustrations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Description explicitly states it does not modify external sources, but performs local cache and session history updates depending on cache hit/miss or force_refresh. This adds context beyond annotations which only indicate non-destructive and not read-only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise at two sentences, covering purpose, constraints, output, and side effects. However, the first sentence is slightly technical ('external read / local bookkeeping write') which may hinder quick understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers key aspects: search scope (public domain), output content (IIIF URLs), caching and session behavior. It lacks mention of prerequisites or rate limits but is adequate for a search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches illustrations in NDL Digital Collection by text keyword, and distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by specifying 'illustrations' rather than general text or pages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for searching illustrations but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use. No guidance on preferring this over tools like jp_lit_search or jp_lit_search_fulltext.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.