abstract_retrieval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states a retrieval operation (implying read-only) and lists supported identifiers, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or how the 'view' parameter affects output. This leaves the agent with limited insight into the tool's behavior beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and includes a concise list of supported identifier types. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is a relatively simple retrieval operation with a rich parameter schema (view, field, id_type). The description covers the core purpose but does not explain return structures (no output schema), potential limitations, or typical use cases. It is adequate but not comprehensive, especially given the lack of annotations.

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 parameters. The description adds a few examples for id_value (DOI and EID) that are replicated in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description provides no extra semantic value beyond a restatement of supported identifier types.

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 retrieves detailed metadata and abstract for a specific Scopus document by identifier, with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'article_retrieval', which may have overlapping functionality, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 the use case (when you have a document identifier and need metadata/abstract) but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like article_retrieval, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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