get_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (Crossref) and the key limitation (no conclusion validation), which is real value, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or behavior on an unresolvable DOI. Adequate but incomplete for a no-annotation 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?

A single sentence with the scope claim front-loaded and the limitation attached via a semicolon. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the data source, the retrieval target (metadata and source links), and the explicit non-goal. What is missing, return shape and failure behavior for bad DOIs, is modest given the tool's simplicity.

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 there is one parameter ('doi'), so the description must compensate. Calling out 'Crossref DOI' implies the identifier namespace, which is useful, but it adds no format example, prefix guidance, or resolution behavior. Partial compensation only.

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: 'Get Crossref DOI metadata and source links.' The negative clause 'does NOT validate scientific conclusions' further separates it from validation-oriented siblings such as verify_citation and verify_claim. However, it doesn't explicitly declare which sibling to use for validation, so it stops short of a 5.

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 negation ('does NOT validate scientific conclusions') implicitly signals when-not-to-use, which is useful routing against verify_claim/verify_citation. But there is no positive guidance on when to reach for this tool (e.g., 'use this to fetch bibliographic metadata before citing') and no named alternative for the validation case.

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