get_paper_by_doi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'available platforms' entails. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loaded in a single sentence: 'Retrieve paper information using DOI from available platforms.' It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameters or usage context, but it's not wasteful.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'paper information' includes (e.g., metadata, abstract, citations), how results are returned, or any limitations (e.g., platform availability). For a retrieval tool with multiple sibling alternatives, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (doi and platform) with descriptions and an enum for platform. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'available platforms,' which loosely relates to the platform parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. 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 purpose: 'Retrieve paper information using DOI from available platforms.' It specifies the action (retrieve), resource (paper information), and key input (DOI). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_crossref' or 'search_semantic_scholar' that might also retrieve paper information, though the DOI focus provides some distinction.

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 minimal guidance: it implies use when you have a DOI and want paper information from platforms. It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_crossref' for DOI-based searches or 'search_arxiv' for arXiv-specific queries), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of explicit context reduces its helpfulness for an AI agent.

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