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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that provenance, conflicts, unresolved evidence, and explicit UNKNOWN are preserved, implicitly ruling out silent resolution or mutation. It does not, however, describe the shape of the returned evidence state, latency, or permissions, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 purpose and the 'use when' clause are front-loaded before the exclusion list, and every clause is substantive. It is dense and runs long as a single paragraph, but no sentence is pure 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?

Usage, exclusions, and behavioral semantics are covered thoroughly, but with no output schema and no annotations the agent still gets no indication of the return structure (how a supported fact vs. UNKNOWN is represented), which is a meaningful gap for an evidence-resolution tool.

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 three parameters (as_of, entity, context) are already documented in the schema, including the as_of omission flag. The description adds no syntax, format, or example detail 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?

The description names a specific function — a pre-action evidence gate that resolves what currently available evidence supports for Crossref DOI metadata — which is far more specific than a tautological restatement of the name. It clearly states the verb (determine/resolve) and the resource (currently supported evidence state), though the heavy domain jargon ('supported Crossref DOI metadata fact') makes the exact scope slower to parse than ideal.

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?

Explicit when-to-use conditions are given ('when a downstream action depends on a supported fact', stale/incomplete/conflicting records, provenance and UNKNOWN handling matters) and an unusually thorough when-not-to-use list (raw lookup sufficient, scientific truth, legal authority, open-ended search, mutation). Nothing is left to inference.

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