jp_lit_search_kokusho_fulltext

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: external read vs local bookkeeping write, non-destructive cache behavior, cache-hit session history updates, cache creation/replacement on miss or force_refresh, and dependence on a public JSON endpoint. This fully explains side effects without contradicting 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 information-dense and front-loaded with the essential external-read/local-write nature. Minor redundancy exists between '非破壊' and 'local bookkeeping write' and between 'external read' and '外部sourceは変更しない', but nearly every sentence conveys a distinct operational fact.

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 tool's complexity—external dependency, local cache semantics, session-history side effects, and snippet-scoped results—the description covers all necessary operational context. The output schema exists, and the description complements it by explaining exactly what kind of data is returned and how to treat cached vs fresh results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms the search targets snippets and clarifies that returned data is snippet-level, but it does not add new meaning about individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: keyword search over Kokusho DB transcription/OCR snippets. It further distinguishes itself by stating what it does not fetch (full text, manifest body, image body) and what it returns (bid, frame number, snippet, official URL), making its role clear relative to sibling search/retrieval tools.

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 gives clear context: use this for snippet-level keyword search, not for full-text or image retrieval, and confirm results on the official screen before adoption. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them, so it stops short of full referral guidance.

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