Search Rakuten Books (Magazines)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns specific fields (e.g., publisher, JAN, preview URL), but does not disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits. Given annotations, the description provides moderate additional context.

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 two sentences in English followed by a Japanese translation. It is front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words, and the bilingual support is helpful. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields (publication cycle, review stats, etc.). It covers search parameters and pagination (implicit via hits/page), but lacks details on sort behavior and data freshness. Overall adequate for a search tool with high schema coverage and good annotations.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in both English and Japanese. The tool's description lists searchable fields but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 the tool searches Rakuten Books for magazines by title, publisher, or JAN, and lists returned fields (issue details, publisher, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like books_book_search or books_cd_search, which search other media types.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the tool name and sibling list imply it is for magazine searches. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are provided, relying on the agent to infer from sibling names.

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