find_data_and_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are conditional on registration and that it is a lookup-only operation that does not retrieve the underlying artifacts, but it omits auth requirements, failure behavior, and return shape.

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 the core action front-loaded and the negative constraint appended. Nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it finds and that it will not fetch. It leaves the return format and the not-registered case underexplained, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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% and the single required parameter (doi) is never mentioned in the description. The name is fairly self-evident, but the description adds no meaning such as accepted DOI formats or whether prefix-only DOIs work, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 states a specific verb and resource: find Crossref links to supplements, data, or software. It clearly distinguishes itself from content-retrieval siblings like read_fulltext and get_paper by scoping to link discovery, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"If registered" and "do not fetch them" imply when the tool is useful (locating links only, not retrieving content) and set an expectation of possible empty results. However, no alternative tool is named for the actual fetching step, so routing is left to inference.

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