Search J-STAGE journals

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It explains matching criteria and a useful workflow, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination behavior, what happens when no parameters are provided, or read-only status. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 tightly scoped sentences; the main purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence provides workflow value without fluff. Every word contributes.

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 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. An agent knows why to call it but not what result shape to expect or how optional parameters affect behavior. This is insufficient for a complete contextual picture.

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 restates name/ISSN search criteria, but those are already present in the input schema. With only 50% schema coverage, it should add meaning for lang, count, start, and publication_type; it does not. The added value beyond the schema is minimal.

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 (search), a resource (journals indexed in J-STAGE), and search criteria (name or ISSN) in a single clear sentence. It also disambiguates from sibling tools by noting this is the prerequisite workflow step before article search or volume listing.

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 concrete workflow context: use this tool to find an ISSN/code before searching articles or listing volumes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusion cases, but the intended usage is clear.

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