scopus_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions return metadata and query syntax, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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 long, with the first sentence covering purpose and output, and the second providing query syntax guidance. All information is relevant and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It does not cover sorting, filtering, pagination, or how this tool relates to siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

All 9 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining Scopus field codes (TITLE(), AUTH(), AFFIL(), etc.) with examples for the query parameter, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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's function: 'Search the Scopus database of abstracts and citations.' It also lists return metadata (titles, authors, DOIs, citation counts), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like abstract_retrieval or article_retrieval that focus on specific document 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 implies usage via 'Search the Scopus database' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like abstract_retrieval or serial_title_search. No exclusions or alternative mentions are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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