scopus_subject_classification_lookup_by_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that scidir results include a parent_code for hierarchy while scopus results have null, which is useful. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, error behavior, or any side effects. For a lookup tool, this is moderate coverage.

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 concise, two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter explanation in a compact list. Every sentence earns its place without redundant 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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the required parameter, optional filters, and the key behavioral difference between scopus and scidir. It doesn't describe the return structure, but for a lookup tool this may be acceptable. It is nearly complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 explain all parameters. It does this by listing optional filters (description, detail, code, abbrev, field) and clarifying that 'field restricts which fields are returned'. This gives enough semantic meaning to each parameter, though it lacks examples or format details. It compensates well for the schema gap.

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 a specific action ('look up'), a specific resource ('subject classification codes'), and its purpose ('to help build more precise search queries'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like document search or serial title lookups, so an agent can easily understand what this tool is for.

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 notes that `source` is required and must be either 'scopus' or 'scidir', which is a constraint. It also frames the tool's use as building search queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when you need classification codes vs. searching documents). The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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