DOAJ — Open Access Journal Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the scope of the response ('full metadata') and listing specific returned fields (aims & scope URL, peer-review type, APC pricing, preservation services, ISSN variants), which tells the agent exactly what to expect from the call.

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 two sentences: the first gives the core purpose, the second lists return fields and the usage instruction. It is well-structured and front-loaded. The field list is compact and informative, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the key parameter, the type of data returned, and the workflow position (after search). It does not cover edge cases like error handling, but the output schema and annotations cover the remaining context, so a small gap remains.

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 coverage is 100% and the journal_id parameter already includes a detailed description with format example and provenance ('Obtain from journal_search results'). The tool description adds the phrase 'by its DOAJ journal ID' and the usage note, but these are essentially restatements of the parameter schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states an explicit verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('full metadata for a single open access journal'), scoped by the identifying key ('by its DOAJ journal ID'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like doaj.journals.search (search vs. detail) and doaj.articles.detail (article vs. journal).

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 includes an explicit usage instruction: 'Use after doaj.journals.search to get complete details for a specific journal.' This tells the agent when to invoke it and reinforces the prerequisite to obtain an ID from search. It does not mention alternative detail tools like doaj.articles.detail, but the condition is clear and sufficient for this tool.

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