get_abstract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the fallback order from OpenAlex to PubMed/PMC BioC, and the return content of source attribution and candidate full-text links.

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 sentences carry the essential information: what is retrieved, from where, fallback behavior, and what is returned. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with a well-documented schema and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, fallback sources, and return value shape, giving an agent enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 the id parameter description fully documents the accepted identifier formats including DOI, OpenAlex work ID, PMID, Inciteful ID, PMC12345, and PMC article URLs. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('a readable abstract'), and names the primary and fallback sources (OpenAlex, PubMed/PMC BioC). It also distinguishes this tool from the full-text siblings by explicitly returning source attribution and candidate full-text links rather than the full text itself.

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 purpose is clear: use this when you need a readable abstract with source attribution and candidate full-text links. It provides clear context for selection, though it does not explicitly mention when to prefer a sibling tool such as get_full_text or get_paper.

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