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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is in disclosing that results are 'verified' and that missing records are not inferred rather than guessed at. The note that the full co-author list is preserved also hints at output shape, though it doesn't describe the not-found response explicitly.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action, the resource, the key, the output trait, and the failure behavior all in one clause chain. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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 single-parameter read tool whose annotations already declare safety and idempotency, the description covers the key behaviors an agent needs: exact lookup, verified records, and no inference on misses. Only DOI format expectations are left unstated, which is a minor gap given the closed-world lookup.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden, and it does clarify that the DOI is an exact record identifier. It adds nothing about DOI formatting or the 250-character limit, so an agent gets the semantic role but not validation expectations.

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?

Names a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (verified bibliographic record) plus the lookup key (DOI), which distinguishes it from the search sibling. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_amir_research_profile or search_amir_research, so differentiation is inferred from the singular record scope rather than stated.

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 'missing records are not inferred' implies this is an exact-lookup tool for known DOIs and that it will not fabricate or substitute results, which usefully signals when not to rely on it. However, it never names an alternative tool or states the condition that would route an agent to search_amir_research instead.

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