get_citation_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (aggregate count plus per-year figures), which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about authentication needs, whether uncited papers return an empty breakdown, or how far back the yearly series extends.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by a single sentence of usage context. No filler, no redundancy with the schema, and the return payload is stated before the rationale.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is responsible for describing returns, and it does name the two key components (total citations, yearly breakdown). For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the time span of the yearly data and the empty-result case are left open.

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 single scopusId parameter is already documented as 'The Scopus ID of the paper'. The description adds only the generic phrase 'for a specific paper' and does not clarify the identifier format or contrast it with DOI-based lookup tools, 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 (get) and resource (citation overview) and specifies the payload: total citations plus a yearly citation breakdown. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_citations, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

"Useful for understanding the impact trajectory of a paper" implies the usage context (trend/impact analysis), so the when-to-use is implied rather than explicit. There is no statement of when NOT to use it and no mention of the obvious alternative get_citations for retrieving individual citing documents.

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