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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: it enumerates the specific metadata fields returned (creators, ORCIDs, funding, usage metrics, timestamps) and notes input format flexibility. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second lists returned content, third covers input format, fourth gives applicability. It is appropriately detailed without redundancy, front-loading the core purpose. It earns a high score for efficiency and clarity.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown here), the description need not explain return structure. It covers input formats, applicability scope, and provides a comprehensive list of returned metadata. It lacks only minor details like error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for a simple lookup tool with one parameter.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, including the same input format details (bare DOI or URL) and the requirement for DataCite-registered DOIs. The description essentially repeats this information, adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Get full metadata for a specific DataCite DOI.' It uses a specific verb (get), resource (DOI metadata), and distinguishes from datacite.doi.search by focusing on a single DOI lookup rather than searching. The explicit list of returned fields further clarifies the scope.

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 description provides useful context about applicability ('Most Zenodo, Dryad, Figshare, and institutional repository DOIs are registered with DataCite') and input formats (bare DOI or URL). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., for Crossref DOIs). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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