bibliographic_coupling

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does it well: it discloses the entitlement requirement for Scopus (subscriber key for REF-view), that OpenAlex needs none, and that outputs are written to disk as GraphML plus a CSV edge list. It omits run-time behavior such as cost, rate limits, or what the tool returns to the caller.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and edge definition, then the entitlement caveat, then the output artifacts. Every sentence contributes and none is redundant.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the coupling definition, auth prerequisites, and on-disk outputs, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not clarify the response payload or whether this runs synchronously or as a job.

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 the schema already documents source, seed_ids, and min_shared thoroughly, including the never-mix-sources rule. The description restates the Scopus entitlement constraint but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 3.

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 ('build a bibliographic-coupling graph for a set of seed papers') and immediately defines the coupling relation and edge weight, which cleanly separates it from siblings like co_citation and citation_network. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

'Maps the current research front' hints at the analytic purpose, but the description never states when to prefer this over siblings such as co_citation, citation_network, or research_fronts, nor any when-not condition. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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