Get Sci Score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the metric's formula, its 0-1 range, and the returned keys. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, failure behavior, or whether date_limit materially changes the score. The metric definition is genuinely useful context, but operational traits are absent.

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 tight sentences with the metric definition front-loaded and the return payload following. Every element is short and nothing is padded. The return-key listing is mildly redundant against the output schema, but it costs little.

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 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the essential missing piece is the meaning of the score itself, which the description supplies. Since an output schema exists, the return values would not strictly need restating, and no operational caveats are missing that would block correct invocation.

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 lang, date_limit, and article_name are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 computed metric (SciScore) with its exact definition — the fraction of an article's citation templates that cite journals, scaled 0-1. This is a clear verb-implied resource and clearly differentiates from siblings like get_ref_count or get_doi_count, which count raw items rather than compute a ratio. It stops short of explicitly naming when it differs from those siblings, but the metric definition itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_citation_types or get_source_type_counts, which operate on overlapping citation data. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing it are provided. The agent must infer usage entirely from the metric name.

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