scopus_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, side effects, or what happens when a query is malformed or returns no results. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses line breaks for readability and groups related information. A minor improvement could be trimming redundant phrasing, but overall it is efficient.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers query usage well but lacks information on return values, pagination metadata, error messages, or practical limits. It is complete enough for basic use but not for robust agent decision-making.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value for the 'query' parameter by explaining field codes and syntax, but for other parameters (count, start, view) it offers no additional meaning beyond the schema. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 'Search the Scopus academic database for papers using Boolean query syntax.' It specifies the action (search), the resource (Scopus academic database), and the method (Boolean query syntax), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like scopus_get_abstract and scopus_search_authors.

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 detailed guidance on query syntax, including common field codes, Boolean operators, and an example. It also references a full syntax resource. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., scopus_search_authors for author searches), leaving some ambiguity.

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