list_reviewers

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns counts, averages, and ratings, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, leaving room for improvement.

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?

The description is concise, with two sentences that communicate the core purpose and a key parameter. The structure is somewhat mixed, as return information is embedded alongside parameter documentation, but it is not verbose and front-loads the main function.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits details on how to specify the journal (ID vs. name), the behavior of `phrase` and `limit`, and the full structure of the response. The statement 'Find a journal's reviewers' implies a required journal, but the schema makes it optional, creating potential confusion.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `status` parameter with values and defaults, which is helpful. But it provides no meaning for `limit`, `phrase`, or `journal`. While `journal` is implied by the tool's purpose, `phrase` and `limit` are left unexplained, leaving a significant semantic gap for three of four parameters.

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 specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('a journal's reviewers'), and what is returned (review statistics). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_journals and get_submission_reviews by focusing on reviewers of a journal, so an agent can infer the correct usage without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. There is no mention of when to prefer this over get_submission_reviews or search_users, nor any explicit conditions or exclusions. The description only mentions the `status` parameter, which is not usage guidance.

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