Search J-STAGE articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns only metadata (title, author, abstract, DOI, link) and never full-text content, which is a non-obvious behavioral constraint. It could additionally note pagination or sort behavior, but those are partly encoded in the start/count parameters.

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 with no fluff: the first fronts the action and filter dimensions, the second delivers the critical metadata-only limitation. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 an 11-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description plus a fully documented schema provides adequate guidance: overall purpose, accepted filter families, and the central limitation on returned content. A slight gap is the lack of an explicit mention of result list/pagination behavior, but the start/count parameters already hint at this.

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%, so every parameter already has its own meaningful Persian description. The tool description adds only a high-level grouping of search dimensions and the metadata caveat, which is useful but does not need to compensate for undocumentd 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 states a specific action ('search'), a specific resource (J-STAGE articles), and the available filter dimensions (keyword, author, journal, year range). It also distinguishes the tool's scope from full-text retrieval by explicitly noting that only metadata is returned.

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 gives clear context about searching Japanese scientific/technical articles and the metadata-only limitation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool. The intended use is implied rather than contrasted with sibling tools like jstage_fetch_article_abstract_and_references.

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