get_journal_selection_rationale_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully explain behavior. It lists output elements (impact factor, fit rationale, etc.) but fails to clarify that the tool likely generates a prompt for a human or AI, not the actual recommendations. The name includes 'prompt', but the description does not state this explicitly, leaving ambiguity about the tool's action and return value.

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 a single concise sentence listing key output features. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and could be slightly reorganized for clarity. Overall, it earns its place with minimal verbosity.

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?

The description omits several crucial details: the tool's behavior (outputting a prompt vs. direct recommendations), parameter descriptions, and how the output schema (which exists) is structured. Despite the clear purpose, the lack of behavioral and parameter information leaves the tool incomplete for effective use.

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%. The description mentions the three required parameters (study_description, indication, target_hcp_type) but provides no details on expected format, examples, or constraints. Without any guidance, an agent cannot correctly populate these fields.

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 recommends top 3 journals for manuscript submission with full rationale, listing specific elements like impact factor, fit rationale, time to decision, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other medical writing tasks (e.g., abstracts, outlines), so purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 tool's purpose is well-defined and distinct from siblings, which cover different tasks (e.g., abstract generation, outline creation). While no explicit 'when to use' or 'alternatives' are given, the context of journal selection is clear and unlikely to overlap with other tools. A brief exclusion statement could improve clarity.

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