kci_journal_metrics

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

There are no annotations, so this description carries the disclosure burden, and it does so well: it explains the parameter-driven behavior (list vs. history), the `years` constraint, and the important interpretive limitation that these indices measure rank within KCI, not scholarly standing. It does not discuss data freshness or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only metrics query.

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?

Three short paragraphs with no fluff: definition, usage pattern, and a caveat that prevents misuse. Important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its 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 and the safety profile simple, the description covers the key call contract: purpose, parameter modes, validation, and interpretation limits. The only real gaps are the unexplained `year` parameter and the lack of explicit sibling-tool routing, but those are minor for this query tool.

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%, so the description must document the parameters itself. It explains `journal` (list view), `journal_id` (one journal's history), and `years` (2–5 range). However, it never explains the `year` parameter or how it relates to `years`, `journal`, and `journal_id`, leaving one parameter semantically unresolved.

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 opening line identifies the resource (KCI journal citation indices) and the exact metric set (impact factor, immediacy, self-citation share). The second paragraph's 'Supply ... for the list view or ... for history' clarifies the action and distinguishes the two primary call modes. It does not name a sibling tool, but the tool's scope is clear enough to separate it from kci_search, kci_article, and kci_references.

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 provides concrete usage guidance: use `journal` for a list view, `journal_id` for a single journal's history, and keep `years` in the 2–5 range. It does not, however, state when to choose this tool over the sibling KCI/korea tools or mention any exclusions, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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