check_retraction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the two upstream data sources consulted and the fact that a null result cannot be treated as confirmation of validity. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, latency, or how a hit is reported.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler, and the caveat is placed where it will be read. It is dense and jargon-heavy ('update-to'), but every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally describe what a positive hit looks like; it only frames the negative case. The absence-inconclusive note is valuable, but return-shape and source-precedence details are missing for a tool whose whole value is its answer.

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 0% and the single 'doi' parameter is never mentioned in the description, so it adds no syntax or format guidance (e.g., bare DOI vs. URL form). The parameter name is self-explanatory enough that this is a moderate rather than severe 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?

States a specific verb (Inspect) and a well-defined resource (Crossref update-to and Retraction Watch-linked updates), which is enough to separate it from siblings like verify_citation or get_paper. It stops short of naming the input (a DOI) or the output, so it is clear but not maximally so.

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 clause 'absence is inconclusive' is a genuine interpretive caveat that tells the agent how to read a negative result, which implies when this tool is worth calling. However, it never states when to prefer this over verify_citation or get_paper, nor any prerequisite or sequencing guidance.

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