get_abstract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether the tool fails on invalid IDs, handles open-access vs paywalled abstracts, returns raw text or structured metadata, or whether it requires authentication. For a read tool with no annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single sentence front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero redundant or filler content. It earns its place by stating purpose and the required input in one clause.

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 one fully documented param, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is minimal but adequate for a simple lookup. However, the absence of any return-shape or failure-mode context leaves gaps an agent calling this tool blind would benefit from filling.

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 schema already fully documents scopusId. The description only restates the identifier requirement without adding format examples (e.g., '2-s2.0-...') or validation behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieve the abstract of a specific paper') and names the identifier type (Scopus ID). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_paper_by_id or get_paper_by_doi by the abstract-extraction focus, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Implies usage via 'using its Scopus ID', giving a clear input prerequisite, but offers no when-to-use guidance or alternatives against siblings like get_paper_by_id or get_paper_by_doi that may also return abstracts or full metadata.

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