abstract_retrieval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. 'Retrieve' signals a read operation and the description adds useful identifier-mode context, but it does not disclose response shape, whether abstracts are always available, or access/entitlement behavior beyond the schema's 'ENTITLED' enum.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource; the second expands on identifier support. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The schema is rich and covers parameter semantics, but the description lacks usage guidance, output-shape expectations, and any comparison with sibling tools. For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 provides 100% coverage of the four parameters, including descriptions, enums, and examples. The description only restates the supported identifier types and does not add semantic details beyond what the schema 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 ('Retrieve') and identifies a clear resource: 'detailed metadata and abstract for a specific Scopus document.' It also enumerates supported identifier types. It distinguishes from search-like siblings by focusing on identifier-based lookup, but it does not explicitly contrast with article_retrieval, so it stops short of a 5.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you have a document identifier (Scopus ID, EID, DOI, PII, PubMed ID) and need metadata/abstract. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as scopus_search or article_retrieval, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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