scopus_get_abstract

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

Discloses the return payload in detail (title, abstract, authors, affiliations, keywords, subject areas, citation count, DOI, open access status). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately communicates that this is a read operation with comprehensive output.

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 concise with no fluff, front-loading the core action. The two sections (identifier types and return fields) are clearly separated. Slightly more structured formatting could improve readability but overall efficient.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates returned fields. Usage tips (strip prefix) add completeness. No mention of pagination, rate limits, or errors, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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%, yet the description adds significant meaning by listing identifier types and noting the stripping of 'SCOPUS_ID:' prefix. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, helping agents construct valid calls.

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 states the action: 'Retrieve full paper details from Scopus using any supported identifier.' It lists identifier types and what is returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools that search or retrieve other entities.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on identifier value formatting (strip 'SCOPUS_ID:' prefix) and lists supported identifier types, helping agents use the correct input. However, does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like scopus_search.

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