resolve-paper

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one behavioral note, 'validates returned identifiers', which is useful but left vague (what gets validated, what happens on failure), with no mention of auth or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the input enumeration comes first and the routing hint second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The identifier vocabulary is complete for the main input; the only gap is any explanation of the optional 'providers' parameter's effect on resolution behavior.

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 coverage is 0% and there are two parameters. The description richly documents the accepted values for 'identifier' (DOI, arXiv ID, PMID, PMCID, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Scholar, Scopus, WOS), which compensates well for the required param, but the 'providers' parameter is never mentioned and its purpose must be inferred.

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?

Specific verb (resolve) plus an explicit enumeration of the identifier types accepted, so the agent knows exactly what inputs this tool consumes. It names search-papers as the tool for the adjacent case, giving partial sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule: use search-papers for titles, implying this tool is for known identifiers. No exclusions or preconditions for the resolve path itself are stated, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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