get_article_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It describes what the call returns, including the conditional 'abstract (when available),' which clarifies a key edge case. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or invalid-ID behavior, but the enumerated output is enough for this simple read operation.

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 one sentence with no filler. The core action and ID source are front-loaded, and the field list is an efficient way to convey the return shape.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what to provide, where to get it, and what metadata will come back. It could add behavior for missing/unknown IDs, but nothing critical is missing for normal invocation.

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 schema already describes scopusId and the automatic prefix stripping, so the baseline is high. The description adds provenance semantics by telling the agent to use a scopusId returned by search_scopus, which is useful information not present in 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve full metadata for a single Scopus article by its Scopus ID.' The enumeration of fields (title, authors, DOI, citation count, etc.) makes the purpose concrete and distinct from a search or abstract-only tool.

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 an explicit usage pointer: 'Use the scopusId returned by search_scopus,' which tells the agent where the required ID comes from. It does not explicitly say when to prefer the sibling get_article_abstract over this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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