Affiliation Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond that: it returns one page of native Elsevier JSON including pagination, and access is gated by Scopus entitlements — real behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and response shape, then the query example, then the entitlement caveat. Every sentence carries information; only the example slightly duplicates the schema's query pattern.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, and the description correctly says only that one page of with pagination is returned. The pagination cap (start + count <= 5000) lives in the schema, and the entitlement precondition is stated, leaving little an agent needs beyond what's provided.

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% across all 10 parameters, so the schema fully documents sort, count, start, facets, view, etc. The description only restates the query example (AFFIL(...) AND AFFIL(...)), which the schema already carries, so it earns the baseline 3 without adding parameter-level meaning.

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 (Search) plus a specific resource (Scopus institution profiles) and the query dialect (native affiliation query syntax). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like author_search or affiliation_retrieval without opening either 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?

The description supplies an entitlement caveat ('Access depends on your Scopus entitlements') and notes credentials come from the environment, which is useful context, but never states when to prefer this over affiliation_retrieval or scopus_search. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than guided.

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