jp_lit_search_kaken_projects

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by characterizing the operation as 'external read / local bookkeeping write (non-destructive)' and explicitly confirming external sources are unchanged. It also discloses cache replacement and session-history updates, which align with and explain the readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false annotations without contradiction.

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?

Each segment of the description contributes substantive scope or behavioral information, and the non-destructive external/local label is front-loaded. It is slightly dense and run-on in the middle, so it is not quite as clean as the highest benchmark.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool, the description, combined with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, is complete enough for correct invocation: it covers domain scope, side effects, cache semantics, external-source non-modification, and the follow-up verification caveat. No critical operating detail is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema: results are 'clues' rather than verified citations, cache hits still update session history, and cache miss/force_refresh replaces local cache, which clarifies session_id, force_refresh, and include_outputs behavior.

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?

States the exact verb and resource (search KAKEN research projects) and describes what it returns: research themes, keywords, report PDFs, and output-list leads. The 'supplementary tool' framing and KAKEN scope clearly separate it from general literature, guide, and illustration searches among siblings.

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?

Explicitly says final confirmation of papers and books must be re-checked via CiNii / J-STAGE / IRDB / NDL, which tells an agent when not to treat this tool's results as authoritative. It also states that external sources are not modified and local cache/session behavior varies by hit/miss, giving concrete operational context.

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