publication_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return shape conceptually (ranking vs. sum of views over time) and date range handling, but it doesn't disclose potential pitfalls like default date behavior or whether the ranking is sorted ascending/descending. It adds some context beyond the schema, but lacks depth.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses bullet-like structure with explicit parameter mentions. A slight improvement could be to break out the timeline modes into separate lines for easier parsing, but the current format is efficient and not wordy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, all optional) and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality but misses details like default date range behavior, ordering of the ranking, and how journal filtering interacts with timeline mode. It's adequate for a basic call, but an agent might need to introspect results to confirm semantics.

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 0%, but the description explains the key parameters: timeline, interval, and date_from/date_to. It doesn't clarify 'limit' or 'journal' semantics beyond their names, but the tool is simple enough that names are somewhat self-explanatory. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap, but not fully for all six 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 clearly states the tool provides 'publication view statistics' and distinguishes between two modes: a ranking (timeline=False) and a time series (timeline=True). This is specific and actionable, and it does not merely restate the tool name. The distinction helps the agent understand the core functionality immediately.

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?

The description explains the two modes of operation and how the 'timeline' parameter controls them, and it specifies the 'interval' option for day or month. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like editorial_stats, though the purpose is clear enough to infer. It could benefit from mentioning that this is for publications, not submissions or issues.

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