import_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses merge keys (Scopus ID, WoS ID, DOI, title+year), the resolution fallback order (DOI, then exact title+year), and that thematic_evolution re-reads keywords from the file with no API calls. It omits where the corpus file is written, permission/API-key needs for Scopus lookups, and error behavior for unparseable files.

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?

Single dense paragraph, but tightly front-loaded with the core action and format list before the deduplication and resolution details. Every sentence carries information, though the downstream-tool sentence is long and could be trimmed slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description states the return values (corpus file path and Scopus IDs) and explains the durable reuse of the produced file. For a two-parameter import tool this covers everything an agent needs to invoke and chain 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% (baseline 3), and the description adds real meaning beyond it: it explains that resolve performs Scopus ID lookups for records lacking one and the matching order used, which the schema's one-line description does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (read/import) and resource (saved bibliographic exports) and enumerates the supported formats (Scopus CSV, RIS, BibTeX, WoS plain-text/tab-delimited) with format auto-detection. An agent can immediately tell this is the file-ingestion entry point, distinct from the search_* and analysis siblings.

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?

Clearly scopes when to use it (importing locally saved exports) and what to do next, naming the downstream tools (citation_network, rpys, historiograph, research_fronts, thematic_evolution) and the corpus_file handoff, plus the default-true resolve behavior. The workflow context is explicit rather than implied.

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