jp_lit_search_pages

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses the scope (internet public materials) and a precondition. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe any side effects, leaving some behavioral traits implicit.

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 core functionality and additional usage notes. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks explanation of how to provide a keyword (since input schema has no properties), and does not mention pagination or output details. The missing parameter mechanism is a significant gap for a search 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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter information because there are none; baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches pages in NDL Digital Collection materials by keyword, and specifies it's for internet public materials only. It differentiates from siblings like jp_lit_search_fulltext by focusing on 'pages,' though the distinction could be clearer.

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 some guidance: internet public materials only, precondition for source_id with jp_lit_get_record, and that pid from jp_lit_search_fulltext can be passed directly. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other search tools like jp_lit_search or jp_lit_search_fulltext.

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