scopus_get_citing_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: an access-permission gate and the caveat that coverage is limited to indexed citing documents. It does not say what an unpermissioned call returns (error vs empty set), which is the main behavioral unknown left.

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 action, then the prerequisite, then the scope caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description correctly focuses on the access gate and coverage limits. The one gap is the REFEID-versus-scopus_id identifier question, which an agent needs resolved before constructing a call.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It conveys that the identifier is a REFEID and that results are paginated, but the parameter is named 'scopus_id' while the description says REFEID — an unresolved naming mismatch — and count/start bounds and defaults are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find Scopus documents citing a paper') and names the identifier mechanism (REFEID). It also pre-empts a likely misreading by saying the result is 'not a universal citation census', which distinguishes it conceptually from citation-count style siblings, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

It gives one concrete prerequisite — specific Elsevier access permission — which is genuinely useful for deciding whether to call it at all. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over scopus_get_citations_overview or scopus_get_citation_count, so the agent must infer that this one returns document lists while those return aggregates.

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