article_retrieval

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that access depends on API key entitlements, but omits failure modes, return format, and how the 'view' parameter affects output detail.

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 sentences, immediately states the primary action and object, and avoids filler. It is well-structured with no redundant content.

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 description covers the core retrieval purpose and access constraint, but lacks guidance on choosing among the view options, handling field selection, or what the response will contain. Without an output schema, this leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter has a description. The tool description adds only a high-level mention of identifier types without enriching beyond the schema's definitions, 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 clearly specifies the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'full-text or metadata of a ScienceDirect article', with supported identifier types (DOI, PII, EID). This definitively distinguishes it from sibling search or serial title tools.

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 description implies use when an article identifier is available, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like abstract_retrieval. The entitlement note gives a prerequisite but no exclusions or alternative references.

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