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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the Crossref open metadata source, search mode behavior, and pricing/free-tier details. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. It states the core action and output, then the search mode, and finally pricing. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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 largely complete for a simple read-only lookup tool: it lists return fields, explains the search mode, and covers cost. It does not explicitly describe the limit parameter's effect or error behavior, but these are minor given the schema and annotations.

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 schema already documents doi and query, including an example for doi. The description reinforces that query is a title/author search but adds little about the limit parameter, which lacks a schema description. With 67% schema coverage, the description partially supplements but does not fully clarify all parameters.

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 and resource: 'Resolve a DOI — or search a paper title — to full citation metadata' and enumerates the exact output fields. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like arxiv_search and book_search by focusing on DOI/citation resolution via Crossref.

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 indicates when to use the tool: for DOI resolution or title/author search, with search mode returning top matches. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the intended usage context is clear and not misleading.

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