scopus_get_citations_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output (citations per year within a date range) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. Still, the main behavior is transparent.

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 very concise: two sentences for the main function plus a separate sentence for prerequisites. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (citations per year within date range). Combined with the parameter descriptions, the tool is fully understandable for an AI agent to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context on how to obtain the scopus_id, which is value beyond the schema definitions for the parameters.

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 gets a year-by-year citation timeline for a paper, with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'citation timeline'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scopus_get_citation_count by emphasizing the yearly breakdown.

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 explicit guidance: requires a Scopus ID and directs to scopus_search or scopus_get_abstract to obtain it. This tells the agent when to use this tool and what prerequisites are needed.

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