jp_lit_search_kokusho_fulltext

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (which only indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by detailing that it performs local bookkeeping writes (non-destructive), caching behavior, external API dependency, and what data is returned. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise yet comprehensive, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing behavior, caching, and return values. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

All critical aspects are covered: purpose, parameters, caching, external dependency, return format, and what is not fetched. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail, but the description still provides essential context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the keyword purpose (search snippets/tags) and force_refresh behavior. It provides context beyond schema, such as page and limit being search result pages. This exceeds the baseline.

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 Kokusho database for transcription/OCR snippets by keyword, returns specific fields (bid, frame number, snippet, official URL), and explicitly states what it does not fetch (full text, manifest, images). This distinguishes it from siblings like jp_lit_search_fulltext or jp_lit_search_kokusho_image_tags.

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 context about dependency on an external JSON API and advises final verification on the official site. It also explains caching behavior and when force_refresh is needed. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or give when-not-to-use guidance.

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