pubscope

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: checks against specific databases, flags missing/retracted/mismatched references, and notes it's free with no signup. No destructive actions implied.

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, no wasted words, front-loaded with key information (what it does, against which databases, what it flags, free).

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 a simple parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand input and output behavior.

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% for the single parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'The reference list text, one reference per line'.

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 verifies reference lists against multiple databases (Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, arXiv) and flags issues like not found, retracted, DOI mismatches. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about 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?

The description tells when to use (verifying a pasted reference list) and mentions free/no signup, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, context makes it clear.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the comparison fields but does not explain how the comparison is presented (e.g., table, text), whether it requires valid ISSNs, what happens with missing data, or if there are order/limit constraints. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence of 15 words with no fluff. Every word serves a purpose: verb, resource, identifier, scope, and fields. It is optimally concise.

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's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but lacks information on output format, error handling, or required permissions. For a comparison tool, the output format is critical for the agent to interpret results, so the description is slightly incomplete.

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 schema coverage at 100% (single parameter 'issns' described as an array of strings), the description adds value by specifying the allowed count (2-4 ISSNs) and providing an example. This extra context helps the agent correctly format the parameter beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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 action ('compare'), the resource ('journals'), the identifier ('ISSN'), and the specific fields compared ('trust, quartile, indexing, APC'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_journal (single journal) and search_journals (search), so an agent can easily understand what this tool does.

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 usage for side-by-side comparison of 2-4 journals, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like check_citations, get_journal, or search_journals. It lacks 'when to use' and 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer.

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?

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It thoroughly lists what the profile contains (indexing, quartile, trust score breakdown, APC, open-access, scope, integrity signals), effectively communicating behavior.

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 concise sentences: first details output content, second provides usage guidance. No redundancy or 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?

For a retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers returned fields and mentions sibling tools are different. Could hint at error cases or ISSN format requirements, but still sufficient.

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 clearly documents the 'issn' parameter. Description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3.

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 'Full profile of one journal by ISSN' with specific content items (indexing, quartile, trust score, etc.), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like search_journals or compare_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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user asks about a specific journal', providing clear context. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but siblings imply distinctions.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes output fields (indexing status, SJR quartile, etc.) and supports filters, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. While the tool is likely read-only, the description misses a clear behavioral declaration.

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 key action and scope. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Highly efficient.

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?

Explains output fields and filter support adequately. Lacks mention of pagination, error handling, or max_results behavior, but these are covered by schema. Overall sufficient for a search tool of moderate 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema; it mentions search fields and filters but does not elaborate on parameter constraints or usage context beyond what's in schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'academic journals' with specific search fields (title, ISSN, publisher). It distinguishes from sibling tools (check_citations, compare_journals, get_journal) which have different purposes.

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?

Implies usage for broad journal search with filters, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings. The description is clear enough that an agent can infer the tool is for searching, not for single-journal lookup (get_journal) or comparison (compare_journals).

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