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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the shared 10.1101/ prefix rationale, parallel checking when server='both', the server-reported-in-response behavior, and the not-found error condition. 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 dense but well-structured: purpose first, then when-to-use, then parameter behavior, then error handling. Every sentence contributes necessary operational information, and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 complete for a two-parameter tool with a rich output schema. It covers the target input, default behavior, error case, and relationship to the sibling tool. Given the annotations and output schema, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 input schema already documents both parameters fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the `server` parameter by explaining why 'both' is the default, how parallel checking works, and how the shared DOI prefix makes server selection ambiguous. This raises it above baseline.

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 action and resource: 'Resolve a preprint DOI to its full journal publication record' and lists the returned fields. It clearly differentiates itself from biorxiv_get_preprint by focusing on the published journal crosswalk rather than the preprint record.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: use when `publishedJournalDoi` from biorxiv_get_preprint is present and full crosswalk metadata is needed. It also tells the agent when not to use it and what to call instead: check biorxiv_get_preprint if confirmation of publication is the goal. Server selection guidance is also included.

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