get_journal_works

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default return format, or performance implications. The only extra detail is 'by ISSN', which is already evident from the parameter schema.

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 focused sentence, immediately stating the tool's purpose. It is concise and well-structured, with no extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the nature of the response, the meaning of optional parameters, or how the results are ordered or paginated, leaving the agent without enough context for effective use.

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%, with 9 total parameters. The description only mentions ISSN, leaving raw, rows, sort, order, query, cursor, filter, and offset entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'works published in a given journal' with the method '(by ISSN)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_work, search_works, and get_journal.

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 the tool is for listing works of a specific journal identified by ISSN, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to use this over search_works or get_work. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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