get_publication_by_doi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets information, without mentioning what happens if the DOI isn't found, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. For a read operation, more detail would be expected.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It clearly states the verb, resource, and lookup key in a compact form. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description is adequate but not rich. It doesn't explain return values, error behavior, or any special contexts. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 seems appropriate—it covers the essentials but leaves room for more detail about expected outcomes.

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 schema describes the 'doi' parameter fully (type, required, example), and the description only repeats that it uses a DOI number. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving article information from TR Dizin using a DOI number. The verb 'getir' (get) combined with the specific resource (article info by DOI) distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_publications and get_author_by_orcid.

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 implies a clear usage scenario: use this tool when you have a DOI number. While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, the context is unambiguous given the tool's name and purpose. It doesn't state what to do if the DOI isn't known, but for a simple lookup this is acceptable.

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