jp_lit_search_pages

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

The description starts with 'read-only' indicating no side effects. It explains caching behavior via force_refresh parameter (bypass cache vs. use saved cache). Also restricts scope to internet-public materials, setting clear expectations. No contradictions since annotations are absent.

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?

Compact and dense with essential information. Two sentences plus additional details immediately after. No redundant phrases. Front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only nature.

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 7 parameters, existence of output schema, and 23 sibling tools, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, behavioral notes, and distinctions from related tools. Agent can correctly select and invoke this tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by suggesting typical values (source: ndl_digital), explaining source_id prerequisite, noting pid can come from jp_lit_search_fulltext, and detailing caching behavior for force_refresh. Adds meaningful context.

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 performs full-text search of pages within NDL Digital Collection materials by keyword, restricted to internet-public materials. It distinguishes from siblings like jp_lit_search_fulltext (for finding candidate pids) and jp_lit_get_text_coordinates (for specific page details).

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use: for source_id, must first check jp_lit_get_record for OCR availability. Also states that for initial pid search, use jp_lit_search_fulltext, and for granular page data, use jp_lit_get_text_coordinates. Clear alternatives and prerequisites.

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