PlumX Metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the Scopus entitlement requirement and the ambiguous HTTP 404 semantics (no metrics vs unknown identifier), which the agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then entitlement and error semantics, in four tight sentences with no filler. The sentence enumerating returned JSON fields is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but the rest all earn their 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 an output schema present, return values need no prose; parameters are fully documented in the schema; and the description supplies the two things the schema cannot — the Scopus entitlement requirement and the meaning of a 404. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter (reqId, idType, idValue) is documented in the schema, including the namespace enum values and the no-URL-encoding rule. The description adds only the vague phrase 'by identifier', so the 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?

Names a specific verb (retrieve) and a distinctive resource (native PlumX metrics) scoped to a single publication or artifact located by identifier. The unique resource name separates it implicitly from siblings like citation_overview, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 states the lookup pattern (by identifier) and a hard prerequisite (active Scopus access), which implies when the tool is usable. However it never states when to prefer this over citation_overview or other metric-bearing siblings, and gives no exclusions.

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