get_article_abstract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully documents an important edge case: missing abstracts return hasAbstract:false with a null abstract, common for older or non-English-language records. It does not cover invalid-ID behavior, but for a simple read operation this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable edge-case behavior without being verbose.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a key edge case. It partially describes the return contract via hasAbstract and abstract, though it does not mention invalid-ID behavior. Overall, the core information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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?

The single parameter has full schema coverage with a description and example. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve just the abstract text for a single Scopus article by its Scopus ID.' The qualifiers 'just' and 'single' clearly distinguish this from the sibling tools search_scopus and get_article_details.

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 implies when to use this tool: when only the abstract is needed and a Scopus ID is already known. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using search_scopus to find the ID or get_article_details for full metadata.

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