index_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses entity resolution rules (DOI first, else title+year) and that the Scopus side is unverified and that coverage becomes a reported property. It omits permissions, rate/API behavior across three external indices, and what the result looks like (counts, overlap matrix), leaving its behavioral profile incomplete.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the core operation, the match rule, and the caveat in four short sentences with no redundancy or filler instructions. The sentence 'Makes index coverage a reported property of a study rather than a hidden one' is the one line that leans toward motivation rather than specification.

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 multi-index tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, the matching rule, and one caveat, so an agent can call it correctly. It still leaves open the shape of the return (per-index citation sets, overlap counts) and any permission or index-access prerequisites, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 scope (ISSN list or basket name), seed_ids, and max_results. The description adds only indirect meaning ('under the same journal scope', the DOI/title+year matching), which is about results rather than parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a concrete operation: computing, across Scopus, OpenAlex, and Semantic Scholar, which papers cite the seeds and how the three sets overlap. The resource (cross-index citing papers) and scope restriction (same journal scope) are clear, and it names a sibling (resolve_citers), so an agent can distinguish it. The question-style opening is slightly indirect versus a direct verb+resource statement.

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?

It gives one routing hint ('Scopus side: REF() search (not verified; use resolve_citers for that)'), which tells the agent when to prefer resolve_citers. However, it never says when to choose this tool over get_citing_papers, citation_network, or search_all, and no explicit when-not guidance is offered beyond the REF caveat.

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