scopus_abstract_detail_by_eid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default view (META) and that the abstract body is only available under richer views subject to subscription. This is useful behavioral context, though it does not address potential errors, authentication, or the exact output structure beyond listing fields.

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 filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the view/subscription nuance is stated clearly. Every sentence adds value.

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 covers the main purpose, the view behavior, and the subscription dependency. However, it lacks error handling guidance, exact parameter values, and any mention of authentication or rate limits. Given the tool's moderate complexity and absence of annotations, it is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the view concept ('Default view is META... richer views such as FULL/META_ABS') but does not explicitly document the parameters or their allowed values. The eid parameter is only inferred from the tool name and the phrase 'by EID', and no details are given about its format or constraints.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('Scopus document by EID'), and enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like scopus_document_search_by_query by focusing on retrieval by EID rather than search.

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 when an EID is already known, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks direct guidance on when to prefer a search or other Scopus tools, so usage context is only implied.

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