search_scopus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the return payload, count defaults and limits, and the conditional presence of abstracts. It does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or explicit read-only status, but for a search tool the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then the return contract, then the follow-up workflow—every sentence adds value and is easy to scan.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists the returned fields, count constraints, and a nuanced caveat about abstract availability. The tool has only two simple parameters, and the description gives an agent enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 reiterates the query modes and count behavior already present in the schema without adding significant new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('Scopus'), and identifies the search facets: author name, keywords, title, or DOI. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by describing candidate-finding versus get_article_details/get_article_abstract metadata retrieval.

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?

Explicitly states the intended workflow: 'Use this first to find candidate articles, then call get_article_details or get_article_abstract with a returned scopusId for full metadata.' This tells an agent exactly when to use this tool and how to proceed afterward.

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