search_scopus

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors: an API-key precondition and that the COMPLETE view returns abstracts and is paginated. But 'COMPLETE view' is never defined, no rate limits or error behavior are mentioned, and pagination mechanics are left to the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key precondition. The only weakness is the undefined 'COMPLETE view', which spends words without conveying information to a reader who lacks that context.

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?

For a nine-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never sketches the return shape beyond 'abstracts', gives no query-syntax hints, and does not explain how to page through COMPLETE results. The rich schema compensates for parameter documentation, but return-value and credential-failure behavior remain unaddressed.

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%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum mapping and pagination note on maxResults. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the Scopus abstract and citation database'), which distinguishes it from sibling source-specific search tools like search_pubmed, search_arxiv, and search_webofscience by naming the database. It does not explicitly contrast with generic siblings such as search_papers or search_literature, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 parenthetical 'requires Elsevier API key' is a real gating prerequisite that tells the agent when this tool is callable. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over the many alternate literature-search siblings, and no mention of what to do if the key is absent.

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