Affiliation Retrieval

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: returns raw Elsevier JSON, entitlement-gated access, and that no linked records or additional pages are fetched automatically—non-obvious operational constraints.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and identifier, followed by return format and constraints. Every sentence carries information; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

An output schema exists so return details need not be restated, yet the description still characterizes the response. Combined with the entitlement caveat and the no-auto-pagination note, this is nearly complete for a retrieval tool with a rich conditional schema.

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%, so the schema itself documents all 8 parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces that 'view' controls one page of related documents/authors and that no additional pages are fetched, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a Scopus institution profile') and pins the identifiers ('by affiliation_id or eid'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling affiliation_search. An agent can select this over affiliation_search/author_retrieval without opening the schema.

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 implies usage via the identifier and view parameters, and notes that DOCUMENTS/AUTHORS views pull related records, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over affiliation_search or which view to pick for which intent. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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