jp_lit_search_pages

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool only works for publicly available materials and emphasizes verification for source_id. Does not mention rate limits or side effects, but these are typical for search tools and the description adds significant value.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with essential information. No redundant words. First sentence states action and constraint, second gives actionable usage notes.

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 that output schema exists (not shown), description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers core purpose, constraints, and important parameter usage. Lacks explanation of pagination and caching parameters, but overall sufficient for agent to invoke correctly.

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 description must compensate. It explains source_id and pid usage, and keyword is implied. However, size, from, force_refresh are not described. Adds moderate value but incomplete coverage of all parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it searches pages within NDL digital collection materials by keyword, limited to publicly available materials. It distinguishes from sibling tool jp_lit_search_fulltext by referring to its pid, indicating a more granular page-level search.

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?

Provides explicit guidance for using source_id (pre-check with jp_lit_get_record) and pid (can pass from jp_lit_search_fulltext). Does not give when-not-to-use compared to other siblings, but the key usage contexts are clear.

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