article_retrieval

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 mentions that access depends on API key entitlements, which is a useful caveat, but it does not explain response format, error behavior, or the practical difference between view levels beyond 'full-text or metadata.' This is insufficient for a read tool with no annotations.

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 every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy and is highly scannable.

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 purpose and identifier types, and the schema documents all parameters. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description leaves out details about return values and potential error scenarios, making it adequate but not fully complete for a tool with four parameters and multiple view options.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by listing the identifier types and implying that full-text access is subject to entitlements, which helps clarify the view parameter's real-world implications. This goes beyond the schema's enum values.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'ScienceDirect article', and specifies the identifier types (DOI, PII, EID). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning ScienceDirect, which contrasts with Scopus-related tools like scopus_search and abstract_retrieval.

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 clear context: it is used when you have a DOI, PII, or EID and need full-text or metadata. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous. The access entitlement note further guides usage.

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