scopus_get_citation_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the endpoint is "lightweight and cached," which warns the agent that results may be served from cache rather than freshly computed. Beyond that note, nothing is said about rate limits, auth requirements, or behavior when an identifier resolves to no record.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the identifier constraint, then the usage recommendation. No filler or repetition of schema content beyond what is necessary.

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 values need not be described, and the identifier requirement is covered. For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only failure behavior (e.g., ambiguous or unresolved DOI/Scopus ID) is left unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters are already documented individually, which sets the baseline at 3. The description does add one meaningful constraint not expressed in the schema — "at least one is required" — which matters because the schema marks neither parameter as required and defaults both to null. That single added constraint is valuable but is the only semantic content 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?

"Get the current total citation count for a paper" gives a specific verb (get) and a specific resource (total citation count), which cleanly separates it from siblings like scopus_get_citations_overview or scopus_get_citing_documents that return lists/breakdowns. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

"Use it for quick citation lookups without fetching the full abstract" gives a clear positive usage condition and implicitly points to scopus_get_abstract as the heavier alternative. There are no explicit when-not conditions or error-case guidance, but the selection context is clear.

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