get_abstract_details

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

The description discloses that abstract text is included 'when available' from CrossRef, indicating potential absence. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error states, or data freshness, which would be valuable given no annotations are provided.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant text. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and a key behavioral caveat.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and an important detail (abstract availability). It could be more complete by mentioning typical output structure or error handling, but it is adequate for basic agent decision-making.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add specific meaning to the scopus_id parameter beyond what the schema already states ('The Scopus document ID'). The tool's overall function is described but no parameter-level detail is added.

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 function: retrieving metadata (authors, journal, citations) and abstract text from CrossRef. It is specific about the resource (Scopus document) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_author_profile and get_citing_papers by combining multiple data types.

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 for obtaining full document details via a scopus_id, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Sibling tools are not named or contrasted.

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