get_crossref_paper_by_doi

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

Description discloses that it returns 'paper metadata in dictionary format, or empty dict if not found', which is beyond the input schema. This provides useful behavioral expectations. No annotations exist to compare, so no contradiction.

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?

Description is extremely concise with just three sentences covering purpose, parameter, return, and example. No unnecessary 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return format. It covers the tool's purpose, parameter, and return behavior sufficiently. Could mention if metadata is full or partial, but not a critical gap.

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?

Description adds meaning over the input schema by explaining 'Digital Object Identifier' and providing an example. Schema had no description for the param, so this fills the gap well.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and identifies resource 'paper from CrossRef' with unique identifier 'DOI'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools (e.g., search_crossref) and download tools (e.g., download_crossref).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the description implies it is for fetching metadata by DOI, which contrasts with search or download siblings. A clearer exclusion of alternatives would improve clarity.

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