scopus_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The description implies a search action but does not explicitly clarify safety or side-effect expectations.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and return value, and the second provides a compact list of key field codes. There is no wasted language, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 9 parameters, a rich schema, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the basic return type but does not cover important behavior such as pagination defaults, the meaning of the view parameter (though schema covers it), or any rate limiting. The tool is moderately complex, and the description could better assist an agent in understanding operational expectations.

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 documents all 9 parameters with descriptions and examples. The description adds value by listing Scopus field codes (e.g., DOI(), KEY(), PUBYEAR) that are not all present in the schema's query examples, enhancing the user's ability to craft effective queries. This goes beyond simple repetition of schema information.

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 states the tool 'Search the Scopus database of abstracts and citations' and specifies the return type: 'metadata about scholarly documents including titles, authors, DOIs, citation counts.' This distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like abstract_retrieval and article_retrieval, which focus on retrieving specific documents rather than searching.

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 provides explicit guidance on how to construct queries using Scopus field codes (TITLE(), AUTH(), etc.), which is helpful for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools (e.g., abstract_retrieval), nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. The context is clear for a search tool, but the when-vs-alternatives guidance is absent.

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