scopus_document_search_by_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behavioral traits: query is passed verbatim, supports Scopus syntax, bare title behaves as loose keyword, and sort defaults to relevancy. Yet it omits other important behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response contains. This is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by precise usage guidance. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. The examples are compact and directly illustrate the intended usage. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description needs to cover a lot. It does explain query handling and sort behavior, but leaves out other parameters (count, view), output format, error conditions, and any rate limits. For a search tool that could return large result sets, such details are important. The description is not complete enough for an agent to fully anticipate behavior without additional lookup.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains 'query' (verbatim, field syntax, bare-title behavior) and 'sort' (default relevancy, option for coverDate). It does not explain 'count' or 'view' parameters, which are left to the schema's generic names. Since it covers the two most critical parameters with rich detail and examples, it substantially adds value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Search for documents in Scopus using a query string' with a specific verb and resource. It further differentiates by explaining Scopus's field syntax and giving concrete examples (TITLE, DOI, AUTHKEY), which clearly sets it apart from sibling search tools in other databases. This is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

It provides clear usage guidance: use field syntax for precise single-paper lookup, and notes that a bare title yields loose keyword results. It also explains the default sort and how to change it. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or point to alternative sibling tools (e.g., crossref for DOI-based lookup), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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