paper-metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results are observed provider counts rather than estimates, but says nothing about rate limits, provider-specific behavior, or partial failures.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The core action and its scope boundary are front-loaded before the multi-provider tip.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required. However, for a tool with two undocumented identifier parameters and no annotation-redundant guidance, the description leaves real gaps an agent must guess through.

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 0% across three parameters. The description hints at the 'providers' parameter but leaves 'identifier' and 'scholar_id' entirely undocumented — including which one to use and whether either is required. Two of three params get no semantic help from either surface.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve observed citation counts by provider and index.' The narrow scope ('never an estimated impact factor or sample length') further sharpens what this tool is and isn't. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get-citation or batch-citations, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Select multiple providers to compare coverage' implies the compare-use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., when to use this vs get-citation or batch-citations). Usage is only implied.

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