paper.doi-lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or any restrictions, only listing return fields.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action (Resolve a DOI) and lists key return fields efficiently. While somewhat lengthy, it uses minimal jargon and is well-structured.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description comprehensively explains the returned metadata fields. It covers work type, title, container, authors, and more, providing adequate context for an AI agent.

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 description adds format acceptance details (bare DOI or full URL) beyond the input schema's description, which is helpful. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the added detail justifies a 4.

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 resolves a DOI to bibliographic metadata via Crossref, listing specific return fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'papers.search' by focusing on exact DOI resolution versus broader search.

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 implies usage for DOI lookup but does not explicitly specify when to use versus alternatives (e.g., papers.search). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.

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