spraay_research_scholarly_journal_info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it costs $0.001 USDC per call, which is not covered by annotations, and confirms read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose error handling or rate limits.

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 very concise with three sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: purpose, cost/read-only, and invocation instruction. No unnecessary words.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about what journal metadata is returned (e.g., title, publisher) and prerequisites. With many sibling tools, more clarity on scope would improve completeness.

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?

The only parameter, issn, is described in the schema as 'issn parameter'. The description adds 'Pass the listed fields directly as typed arguments', which is generic and does not enhance understanding. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Journal metadata by ISSN', specifying the verb (retrieve metadata) and resource (journal by ISSN). The tool name also indicates it's for scholarly journal info, distinguishing it from sibling tools like spraay_research_papers_by_doi or spraay_research_biomedical_by_pmid.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks statements like 'Use when you have an ISSN; for other identifiers use other tools.' The context is implied but not stated.

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