sciencedirect_article_object_by_identifier

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It transparently states that the tool does NOT download binary content and only returns metadata plus download links. It could add error/auth/pagination details, but the core behavioral boundary is clear.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place. The purpose is front-loaded, the download limitation is stated immediately, and the identifier-type guidance is compact and useful. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple metadata-list tool: it names what is returned, what is not returned, and which identifier types are likely to work. The missing treatment of the view parameter and lack of error or pagination details are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds concrete, actionable semantics for identifier_type: doi or pii are verified working, while scopus_id/pubmed_id may also work. The identifier parameter is self-explanatory, but the view parameter remains unexplained, preventing a perfect score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get metadata') and names the exact resource: figures/tables/supplementary materials attached to an article. It also lists the returned fields (filename, mimetype, type, download link) and explicitly distinguishes itself from binary download, which differentiates it from the sibling retrieval tool.

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 clearly scopes when the tool should be used: when you need metadata and download links for attached objects, not when you need the binary content itself. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as sciencedirect_article_retrieve_by_identifier, so the guidance is mostly implicit rather than fully prescriptive.

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