jp_lit_search_pages

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

The description discloses important behavior beyond the annotations: it is an external read but performs local bookkeeping writes, is non-destructive, never modifies external sources, updates local session history even on cache hits, and creates/replaces local cache on cache miss or force_refresh. This is consistent with the annotations—readOnlyHint=false matches the local write behavior, and destructiveHint=false matches '非破壊'—so there is no 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?

The description is one dense block but every clause carries operational value: scope, sibling routing, source_id precondition, pid pass-through, non-destructive guarantee, and cache behavior. It could be more scannable with a list or clearer sentence breaks, but it is not bloated.

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—8 parameters, many siblings, and an output schema—the description covers the essential workflow context: external access pattern, internet-public-only constraint, source_id prerequisite, when to use alternatives, direct pid reuse, and cache/session side effects. The output schema already handles return-value details.

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 reinforces parameter relationships like passing jp_lit_search_fulltext pids directly and checking OCR availability before using source_id, but the schema already documents these details, so the description adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond what is already structured.

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 a specific verb and resource: keyword full-text search of pages inside NDL Digital Collection materials, with the scope constraint of 'インターネット公開資料のみ'（internet-public materials only）. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying candidate-pid discovery belongs to jp_lit_search_fulltext and specific-page OCR/image checks belong to jp_lit_get_text_coordinates.

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?

It provides explicit routing: use jp_lit_search_fulltext when searching candidate pids across all materials, use jp_lit_get_text_coordinates for page-level OCR text and image URLs, and check jp_lit_get_record first when using source_id. It also states that pids from jp_lit_search_fulltext can be passed directly, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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