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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says metadata is returned. It does not disclose how invalid or partial DOIs are handled, whether the query must be URL-encoded, or what happens on missing Crossref records.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words. The core action and result type are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so minimal context is acceptable, but the description still leaves ambiguity about DOI formatting and example input. An agent is likely to infer more than the definition actually guarantees.

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 provides only a parameter name 'q' with no description, so the description must compensate. It implies q is a DOI, which is essential meaning, but it does not specify accepted DOI formats or whether prefixes like 'https://doi.org/' are allowed.

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 the operation ('Resolver') and resource ('DOI') and specifies the output domain ('Crossref publication metadata'). It is more specific than a generic lookup but does not explicitly distinguish it from related scholarly-metadata siblings like datacite or openalexwork.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. An agent cannot tell from the description when to call this tool instead of crossrefauthor, unpaywall, or semanticscholar, and there is no mention of fallback behavior or alternatives.

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