scopus_get_author

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It lists the return fields (h-index, citation count, etc.) and gives example IDs. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential error scenarios. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 (3 sentences) with front-loaded purpose, a clear list of return values, and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary information: what the tool does, what it returns, and how to obtain the required input. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'author_id' is documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying it is a numeric string, specifying to not include the 'AUTHOR_ID:' prefix, and providing example IDs.

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 a researcher's full Scopus profile') and specifies the resource (by Scopus Author ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools by directing users to first use scopus_search_authors to find the ID.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to get a profile given an ID) and provides a clear alternative (scopus_search_authors) for finding the ID first. While it doesn't list negative cases, the guidance is sufficient for a retrieval tool.

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