find_journals

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return payload (rank, percentile, quartile, CiteScore, CSV, SRCID fragments), the data vintage ('latest complete CiteScore year'), and the edge-case behavior that ambiguous category names return candidates rather than failing. It omits any auth/quota or result-size expectations, so not a 5.

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?

Long but dense and front-loaded: purpose, cut-off semantics, category format, return payload, and data vintage each appear once in a single flowing sentence. Nothing is wasted, though the run-on structure makes it harder to scan than a split sentence would be.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover purpose, filtering semantics, inputs, and return values — and it does all four, including downstream usability of the SRCID fragments. An agent can call this correctly without opening the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the percentile semantics (Q1 = 75, top 10% = 90) and gives ASJC name/code examples, but these largely duplicate what the schema already documents.

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+resource+scope: listing journals filtered by Scopus subject category and CiteScore percentile. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_journal_metrics (metrics for a known journal) and search_all (which this tool feeds query fragments to).

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?

Frames the use case explicitly ('the quality cut-off for scoping a literature review') and points to search_all as the downstream consumer of the returned SRCID(...) fragments. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative for the same job, so not a 5.

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