scopus_serial_title_search_by_criteria

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the view-dependent subscription limitation ('ENHANCED/CITESCORE may require a higher subscription'), the maximum page size (max 200), page offset semantics, and the large-result warning for unfiltered queries. These go well beyond basic purpose and materially affect invocation.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the purpose and sibling distinction, then uses a compact labeled list for filters, and closes with a crucial usage warning. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers all filter semantics, allowed values, pagination, subscription constraints, and the large-result pitfall. It even tells the agent what the return contains: a list with SNIP/SJR metrics.

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, and it does thoroughly. It explains every field: title as substring match, subj as subject abbreviation not numeric code, content with allowed values, oa with allowed values, start as page offset, count page size max 200, and view with subscription caveat. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search journals/serials by multiple optional criteria (no ISSN required).' It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling scopus_serial_title_by_issn, which looks up ONE journal by exact ISSN, making the search-by-criteria scope unmistakable.

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?

It names the closest alternative, scopus_serial_title_by_issn, and states the deciding condition: one-journal-by-ISSN lookup vs. multi-journal list search. It also gives an explicit warning that passing no filter is allowed but browses all serials and will be huge, effectively telling the agent to supply at least one filter.

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