kci_journal_citation

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the API key requirement and clarifies the two operational modes (year/year range for list, journal_id for detail), which is valuable context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe pagination or response formatting.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key parameters with no filler or redundant information.

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 covers the API key, list/detail modes, and detail content (registration history and yearly IF), but with no output schema it does not describe the list response structure or the rows parameter behavior, making it incomplete for thorough understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that year and years (2-5) drive list queries and journal_id drives detail, but it does not explain the rows parameter or how it interacts with the others, leaving a notable gap.

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 identifies the tool as a journal citation index REST API with two distinct modes: listing by year (with years range) and retrieving details by journal_id. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like kci_search and kci_detail.

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 implies usage for citation index lookups and outlines the parameter-driven modes, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It mentions the API key requirement as a prerequisite, which is helpful.

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