get_abstract_details

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 states this is a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any constraints like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'full details' entails. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with good schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'full details' includes in the response, potential errors, or usage constraints. For a retrieval tool, this lack of output and behavioral context is a significant shortfall.

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%, with the single parameter 'scopus_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond implying this is the primary identifier, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Retrieve full details') and resource ('for a specific document by Scopus ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_author_profile' or 'get_citing_papers' beyond the document focus, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_scopus' or other siblings. It mentions retrieving details for a 'specific document,' implying you need a known Scopus ID, but doesn't state this explicitly or provide any context about prerequisites or alternatives.

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