Get DOAJ journal by ISSN

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the ISSN is not found. Given the strong annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate – the description does not contradict annotations but also does not enrich beyond them.

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 sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Look up a single journal') and the essential constraint (by ISSN). Perfectly concise and scannable.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with no output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description is adequate. It does not explain the return format or absence behavior, but given the simplicity and the sibling context, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100% and already explains that the parameter is a print or electronic ISSN with format example. The description's mention of 'print or electronic ISSN' merely restates the schema, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Look up'), a precise resource ('a single DOAJ-indexed journal'), and the exact lookup key (ISSN). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling search_doaj_journals and others by specifying a single-record lookup by identifier rather than a broad search.

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 implicitly states the usage condition: you must have an ISSN (print or electronic). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the clarity of the required input makes the context clear. A mention of 'use search_doaj_journals if you don't have an ISSN' would earn a 5, but the current phrasing is sufficient.

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