resolve_doi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool asks the registry, what `resolves: false` means, that well-formed DOIs can be fabricated, and what fields are returned on success. This gives the agent a realistic model of the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core question and usage instruction, followed by behavior and return details. Each sentence adds information, though the point about fabricated DOIs is slightly expansive; still, it reinforces an important trust boundary.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, when to call it, false/true semantics, return fields, and accepted input formats. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 only defines `doi` as a string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by specifying accepted forms: bare (`10.…`), URL, or `doi:`-prefixed. This is meaningful format guidance beyond the schema, though an example would have made it even clearer.

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 opening question 'Does this DOI resolve, and to what?' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. The description further specifies it is for DOIs destined for nanopub fields, CITATION.cff, or CiTO citations, distinguishing it from the non-DOI sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Call it on every DOI destined for a nanopub field, CITATION.cff, or a CiTO citation,' giving a clear trigger condition. It also instructs not to publish when `resolves: false`, providing actionable guidance beyond mere invocation.

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