search_journals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a generic search capability, omitting any details about pagination, filtering, sorting options, or the nature of results. The agent has no information about response format or operational 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?

The description is a single sentence, so it is brief, but it is under-specified. It captures the core purpose but lacks any structural elaboration that would help the agent, making it more under-specified than concisely informative.

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 tool with 6 parameters (including enums for sorting and language) and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It provides only a high-level purpose and none of the necessary operational context, leaving the agent to guess about filtering, pagination, and result structure.

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 33%, and the description fails to compensate for the remaining undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's own field names and minimal descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use 'page', 'limit', 'order', or 'language'.

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 searches academic journals ('akademik dergi ara') within TR Dizin. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_publications and search_authors, making the resource scope explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer journal search over publication/author search, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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