enrich_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like read-only or idempotency. It only implies a read operation ('resolve') but does not confirm side effects, error handling, or network dependency. The agent gets minimal insight into tool 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 a single sentence that is concise but underspecified. For a tool with 2 undocumented parameters, it fails to include essential information, making it closer to under-specification than efficient conciseness.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description omits crucial context about input semantics and behavior. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the tool incomplete for correct use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation for the 'candidates' or 'backends' parameters. The agent has no clue what candidate identifiers are (e.g., DOIs, IDs) or what backends represent, which critically undermines correct invocation.

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 action (resolve) and the resource (candidate identifiers to full paper records), making the tool's purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_papers' by focusing on resolution of candidates rather than general search, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_papers' or 'verify_paper'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

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