scopus_get_citation_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the endpoint is lightweight and cached, indicating performance characteristics. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects.

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 sentences with no extraneous information. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to use it (identifiers), and when to use it. It could be improved by mentioning behavior when both identifiers are provided or error cases.

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%, but the description adds value by clarifying the conditional requirement that at least one of the two parameters must be provided, which is not captured in the schema itself.

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 tool retrieves the current total citation count for a paper, specifying the action and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like scopus_get_abstract or scopus_get_author.

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 provides guidance on when to use the tool ('for quick citation lookups without fetching the full abstract') and explains that at least one identifier (Scopus ID or DOI) is required. However, it does not explicitly exclude situations or mention alternatives.

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