jp_lit_search_pages

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it limits search to internet-public materials and requires verification for source_id. It implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety or mention any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds essential usage guidance. Every phrase contributes meaning with no redundancy.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description covers the tool's scope, preconditions, and a sibling relationship. However, it could better situate the tool among many sibling search tools (e.g., differentiating from jp_lit_search or jp_lit_search_fulltext).

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no meaning. The description adds value by explaining the tool's function, acceptable inputs (pid from jp_lit_search_fulltext), and a precondition (source_id availability check). It effectively compensates for the absence of 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?

The description clearly states it searches pages in NDL digital collection materials for internet-public content, and references jp_lit_search_fulltext's pid as input. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like jp_lit_search or jp_lit_search_fulltext, leaving ambiguity.

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 specifies when to use (searching pages in internet-public NDL materials) and provides preconditions for using source_id (check availability via jp_lit_get_record). It also mentions a valid input from jp_lit_search_fulltext. It does not state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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