openalex_get_work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It lists return fields (title, abstract, authors, etc.) and accepted identifier formats, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a simple read operation, this is sufficient.

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 a single paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what input is needed, and what the output contains, with no missing critical information.

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?

The input schema provides no description for the 'identifier' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the parameter accepts OpenAlex ID (W-number), DOI, PubMed ID, or MAG ID, and describes formats for DOIs and PubMed IDs. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 retrieves full metadata for a single scholarly work, and specifies accepted identifier types (OpenAlex ID, DOI, PubMed ID, MAG ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'openalex_search_works' which are for searching.

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 implicitly provides usage context by listing identifier formats and stating the tool is for a single work. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the list of sibling tools provides that context.

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