Find a DOI from a title

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real value: the data source (Crossref), the default result count of 5, and the returned fields (title, authors, year, container, DOI). It doesn't mention fuzzy-match behavior for partial titles beyond implying it, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then return shape then inputs, with zero filler. The example-prompt sentence is a nice addition but slightly redundant given the rest of the text.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields and default result count. Combined with the source and next-step tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with matching wording ("family name", "as much of it as you know", limit 1-10). The description largely restates the schema rather than adding new syntax or edge-case guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search Crossref for the DOI") and names the input precondition (title but no DOI). It also distinguishes itself from sibling cite_from_doi by positioning this tool as the lookup step that feeds that one.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ("when you have its title but no DOI") and routes downstream to cite_from_doi. It does not explicitly contrast with cite_from_url or cite_from_isbn, so the agent must infer that those handle non-title identifiers.

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