resolve_doi

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return structure (dict with specific fields) and error behavior ('Raises an error if invalid or not found'), which is sufficient for a read-only resolution tool.

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 efficiently structured: one-line purpose, supported formats, parameter block, return block, error note. Every sentence adds value, and key info is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description explains return fields (title, DOI, creators, etc.) and error conditions. For a single-parameter tool, this is nearly complete, but lacks mention of prerequisites like authentication.

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 coverage is 0% (no property description), so the description adds essential meaning: 'doi : str, The DOI to resolve' and enumerates accepted formats. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 action ('Resolve a DOI') and the resource ('Zenodo record metadata'), specifying supported input formats. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_record' by focusing on DOI resolution.

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 details supported DOI formats (full DOIs, DOI URLs, Zenodo-specific) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'get_record' or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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