enrich_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a non-destructive lookup via 'resolve', but does not disclose whether identifiers are validated, what happens on failure, or any side effects. Absent annotation support, more explicit behavioral context is needed.

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, well-structured sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could have incorporated parameter details without losing 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists) and the low schema coverage, the description lacks detail on parameters and behavioral nuances. While the return structure is covered by the output schema, the input semantics and error handling are insufficiently explained.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description only mentions 'candidate identifiers' without explaining what types of identifiers are accepted (e.g., DOI, PMID) or the role of the 'backends' parameter. This fails to add meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 verb 'resolve' and the resource 'candidate identifiers to full paper records', indicating a lookup/enrichment function. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_papers' (query-based) and 'verify_paper' (existence check) by focusing on resolution of identifiers. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'candidate identifier'.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_papers' or 'verify_paper', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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