get_author_profile_scopus_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates read-only behavior by stating 'retrieve' and 'returns'. It does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, which is acceptable for a simple retrieval tool. However, it could be more explicit about the source (Scopus).

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and constraint, the second describes the output. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description need not detail every returned field. It mentions key metrics (h-index, document metrics). For a simple retrieval tool, this is sufficient. It leverages the output schema for the rest.

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?

The sole parameter author_id has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description compensates by specifying that it must be a Scopus Author ID consisting of digits. This adds meaning beyond the schema's generic string type. The format constraint ('digits') is useful.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a Scopus author profile using a Scopus Author ID, and specifies the returned metrics (h-index and document metrics). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_author_profile_s2_tool (Semantic Scholar) and search_authors_tool (search by name).

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 that the tool should be used when you have a Scopus Author ID (digits) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or what alternative to use if the ID is unknown. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or fallback options.

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