replication_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels by detailing live data retrieval, author-agnostic signers, returned fields (validation status, CiTO relation, repository, links, agreement pattern, claims, title/abstract), and behavior for unreplicated DOIs ('open').

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 detailed and somewhat verbose, but effectively structured with clear bullet points outlining return values. It could be more concise, but the length is justified by the breadth of information.

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 no output schema and one undocumented parameter, the description compensates by thoroughly explaining return values, data source, and behavior (e.g., 'open' for unreplicated). It is nearly complete for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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 sole parameter 'doi' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain its format or meaning beyond the name. The context implies it's a DOI string, but explicit guidance is missing.

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's purpose: to check if a DOI has been independently replicated and whether it held. It specifies the data source (Science Live verdicts from nanopub network) and distinguishes it from other systems like OpenAIRE Graph.

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 usage for obtaining replication status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (find_independent_software, radar, verified_claims). No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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