publication_counts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses per-source request behavior (Scopus issues one request per year, OpenAlex one request for all years), the 60-year cap, and the cross-source counting caveat, which materially affects result interpretation. It stops short of describing the returned structure or error/partial-result behavior.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the per-source mechanics and the comparability warning. Every clause conveys operational information; nothing is decorative or repeated from the schema.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers source selection, syntax, year-range constraints, and interpretation caveats adequately, and the stated purpose implies a per-year count series return. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact shape of the returned counts, but the gap is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: it explains the query syntax difference per source (Scopus syntax vs plain words quoted against title/abstract) and that from_year/to_year are required for Scopus and capped at 60 years, which the schema does not convey.

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 ('Count publications per year for a query') and immediately contrasts with the record-returning search siblings by framing the output as a per-year count for charting trends. An agent can tell this apart from search_scopus/search_all 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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use scenario ('to chart how attention to a topic rose and fell') and prescribes comparing trends within a source rather than levels across sources. It does not name an explicit alternative tool or state when not to use this one, which keeps it short of a 5.

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