jp_lit_search_kaken_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently states the tool is an 'auxiliary tool' that returns 'hints' (手がかり), making clear results are not definitive. It does not mention side effects (none expected for a read search) or rate limits, but the auxiliary nature is well communicated.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and return type, the second adds important usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 9 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain key filtering options (researcher name, fiscal year range, etc.). While the output schema exists, the lack of parameter guidance reduces completeness for correct tool invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no explanation of the 9 parameters. Parameter names alone (query, limit, page, etc.) do not convey semantics; the description only mentions general outputs, not how parameters filter or control the search. This is severely lacking.

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 KAKEN for research projects and returns hints about themes, keywords, report PDFs, and output lists. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that for final literature confirmation, one should use other databases (CiNii/J-STAGE/IRDB/NDL), making its scope and purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use (searching KAKEN projects) and when-not-to-use (final confirmation of papers/books) and names alternative tools (CiNii, J-STAGE, IRDB, NDL) for the latter, giving clear guidance on appropriate contexts.

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