get_journal_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses entitlement requirements per source, the 200-journal cap, that SRCIDs cost one Scopus search each, that unfound journals are listed and never dropped, and that results are also written to CSV. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and none are derivable from the 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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with what the tool returns before covering sources and limits. Every clause carries information, though the opening sentence stacks several metrics and provenance details, making it slightly heavy to parse.

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-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs, entitlements, limits, edge-case handling (missing journals), and output side effects (CSV). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that SRCIDs are mapped to ISSNs via one Scopus search each, that OpenAlex accepts only ISSNs, and that Scopus source_ids are Scopus-only. The ISSN hyphen tolerance is left to the schema, which already documents it.

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 ('journal metrics for a list of journals') and immediately scopes the two data-source variants (Scopus vs OpenAlex). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_journals or search_scopus, since the agent knows this retrieves metrics for already-identified journals.

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?

Gives concrete input guidance (ISSNs or SRCIDs) and names the alternative source path with its condition ('source=openalex ... no entitlement' vs Scopus needing search entitlement). It stops short of explicitly stating when NOT to use this tool or which sibling to prefer for adjacent tasks, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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