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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing that only reviewed verdicts are included and that the response is organized per indication, which is behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the key identifier and include-filter are both mentioned efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the input, the lookup key, and the return content sufficiently. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by 'per-indication verdicts (reviewed-only)', though a bit more detail on the return shape would make it fully complete.

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 the schema already documents both doi and lang. The description reinforces that the study is looked up by DOI but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Get one study by DOI') and adds a distinctive detail ('with its per-indication verdicts (reviewed-only)') that separates it from siblings like get_indication or list_indications. An agent can immediately infer what this tool returns and what identifier it needs.

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 phrase 'Get one study by DOI' gives a clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent already has a DOI and needs that specific study's verdicts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to avoid obvious misuse.

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