Conference Partner

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

Given the readOnlyHint annotation is already present, the description adds valuable context: it requires credentials (with exact authentication methods and URL), and cautions that responses link to the Conference Partner detail_page rather than the venue's external website. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the annotation.

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: the first front-loads the purpose and content details, the second conveys credential requirements and a linking caveat. Every sentence adds unique information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 lists the returned components, mentions required authentication, and flags an important linking behavior. This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect and how to call the tool, even without structured response details.

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 coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'id' is described as 'Conference id' in the input schema. The description repeats this without adding new semantic details like validation rules or how to obtain the id. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 gets full details of a conference by id, enumerating the types of data included (basics, CFP text, acceptance-rate history, edition history, ratings, comments, related venues). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_journal and search_conferences.

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 implies use when you have a conference id and need comprehensive details, which is clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose statement differentiates from search/list tools sufficiently for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires credentials (Authorization header) and notes that responses point to the Conference Partner detail_page rather than the venue's external site. These go beyond the static safety hint and help the agent anticipate authentication needs and response quirks.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence packs necessary credential and response details without fluff. Every word adds value, and the structure is clear.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what is returned (basics, CFP, special issues, ratings, related items) and the required auth context. All essential information is present, making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters (only 'id' with description 'Journal id'). The description merely reiterates 'by id' and adds no extra syntax, format, or constraints. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; no additional value is provided.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get full details of a journal by id' and enumerates the exact content (basics, CFP text, special issues, structured ratings, related journals/conferences). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_journals (listing) and search_journals (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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool (when you have a journal id and need full details). It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement, but the id-based scope and the contrast with listing/searching siblings provide clear context. No when-not or alternative tool is named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires credentials (Bearer token), always excludes contact details, and has no search/enumeration capability. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying authorization needs and data exclusions, though it does not mention error scenarios or exact response structure.

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 that are front-loaded with the purpose and include only essential operational details (credentials, exclusions, limitations). Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers all necessary context: what is returned, what is not returned, how to authenticate, and the id-based access pattern. It is complete for this level of complexity.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('Researcher (user) id'). The description reinforces 'by id' but does not add new semantic details such as format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Get a researcher's public profile by id' and enumerates the exact contents (name, institution, research-interest summary, CV, conferences, journals). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on researchers vs conferences/journals/statistics, and there is no other researcher-specific tool.

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 provides explicit when-to-use ('by id only') and when-not-to-use ('there is no researcher search or enumeration', 'Never includes contact details'). It also notes the credential requirement as a prerequisite. However, it does not name specific alternative tools, though no search/list researcher siblings exist, so the exclusion is effectively guidance.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no destructive side effects, and the description adds extensive detail about what data is returned (totals, distributions, deadlines, tiers). It also explains the research-field key convention, which goes beyond the annotation. No behavioral contradictions.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose (site-level public statistics) and lists specific categories. It could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but it is reasonably concise for the amount of detail conveyed.

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 no parameters and a read-only annotation, the description covers the tool's output comprehensively. However, there is no output schema, so it would be helpful to know the response format or whether fields are optional. The research-field key note partially compensates.

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 input schema has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description provides all needed context about what the tool returns. The baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description richly details the output categories, which 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 returns 'Site-level public statistics' and enumerates the exact categories (conference/journal totals, open CFPs, deadlines by month, tier distributions, research-field distributions, journal impact-factor, publisher distributions). It also clarifies that research-field keys match those used by search tools, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual records or 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?

The description implies this tool is for aggregate statistics about the site rather than individual entities, but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like get_conference or search_conferences. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, though the scope is reasonably clear from the content.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: results are paginated, there is no keyword filtering, some rankings only cover rated venues, cp_index covers the whole catalogue, and each cp_index row carries confidence. These are substantive traits beyond the annotation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and immediately followed by the key exclusion and alternative. There is no wasted wording.

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?

For a read-only, paginated list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description supplies the missing routing guidance and ranking coverage context. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and choose it over siblings.

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%, and the schema already documents page, field, ranking, and per_page in detail. The description reinforces the ranking categories but does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: browsing conference lists and rankings, with examples of ranking types and pagination. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from search_conferences by noting the absence of keyword filtering.

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?

It gives an explicit alternative: use search_conferences for keyword filtering. It also explains what the tool is for by naming ranking categories such as open CFPs, ranked venues with an open call, popularity, and most competitive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination trait, but says nothing about ordering within a ranking beyond what the enum implies, nor about response shape. Adequate but not rich.

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, zero filler, with the scope and the redirection front-loaded. Every clause 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?

For a paginated read-only list tool with full schema descriptions and safety annotations, this is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that with no output schema, the agent gets no hint of what a journal entry contains, though that is minor for a browse 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter, including the ranking and field enums, is fully documented in the schema itself. The description's parenthetical enumeration of ranking modes largely restates that. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Browse') plus resource ('journal lists and rankings') with the ranking modes enumerated (CFPs, CCF, impact factor, popularity, all). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly-named sibling search_journals.

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?

States an explicit exclusion ('No keyword filtering') and routes the agent to the correct alternative ('use search_journals for that'). The condition that selects the sibling is unambiguous.

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

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

readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, so the description's main contribution is 'Returns a paginated list', which tells the agent results are paged. It says nothing about default ordering, what happens with zero filters, or result size beyond the schema's per_page cap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the combinability rule, then the return shape. Every sentence adds information; nothing is padded.

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 12 optional params and no output schema, the description gives the essentials an agent needs: filters compose, filter-only is valid, results are paginated. Missing details such as sort order or the behavior of an entirely unfiltered query are minor but real gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema can't: that keyword, CCF/CORE/QUALIS ranks, field, and both date ranges are all independently optional and combinable. Individual rank formats and date syntax are left to the schema, appropriately.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search academic conferences') and the union of filterable facets. It doesn't explicitly contrast with list_conferences or search_journals, so an agent must infer that search = filtered retrieval while list = enumeration.

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?

Explains that every parameter is optional, that facets can be combined freely, and that filter-only queries are valid, with a concrete example (field=ai plus a submission-deadline window, no keyword). No exclusion rules or named alternatives, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that filters are optional and results are paginated, but it does not disclose sorting, result-field shape, or other behavioral details beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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?

It is two compact sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The optional-filter note and return note each contribute useful information.

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?

The schema fully documents seven parameters and the annotations establish read-only safety. However, with no output schema, the description only says 'paginated list' and does not explain result fields or ordering, leaving a gap for an agent trying to understand what comes back.

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 description names the main filter concepts (keyword, CCF rank, research field, ISSN), but omits page, per_page, and updated_since. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the detailed parameter semantics, so 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 states a specific verb and resource: searching academic journals. It is clearly distinct from conference/researcher siblings by resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_journals or get_journal.

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?

It notes that all parameters are optional and filters can be combined, which implies how to use the tool. However, it does not say when to use search_journals instead of list_journals, get_journal, or search_conferences.

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