get_journal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the ISSN format and hyphen flexibility, which is parameter semantics rather than behavioral context. It does not describe return format, error handling, or rate limits, but annotations lower the burden.

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 front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and key parameter. There is no wasted wording, and the ISSN format is included efficiently.

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 simple get-one tool, the description covers the identifier and format, but it omits explanation of the 'raw' parameter and the return value. With no output schema, the agent is left without details about what the tool returns or how 'raw' behaves, leaving notable gaps.

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 adds meaning to 'issn' by specifying the format (NNNN-NNNN; hyphen optional), which is not in the schema. However, the 'raw' boolean parameter remains completely unexplained, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not fully compensate for parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the resource ('one journal'), and specifies the unique identifier ('by ISSN'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like search_journals and get_journal_works.

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 implies usage when a specific ISSN is available and a single journal is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_journals or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving guidance implicit.

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