campus_research_resolve_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value: candidate URLs are unverified until read and checked for title, DOI, hash and passage, and source coverage is conditional on an exact DOI match.

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 dense but well-formed sentences; the resolution outcome is front-loaded and the caveat about unverified candidates follows. It is on the verbose side, but no sentence is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return surface (source-specific candidates and matching landing-page/file candidates) and states the verification caveat. The main remaining gap is that it never explains the verification workflow a caller should follow next.

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?

Only one parameter (doi) and the schema carries a 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It says 'exact DOI', implying exact-match input rather than fuzzy lookup, but adds nothing about format, prefix handling, or the 6-350 length bounds.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Resolve an exact DOI ... into public Crossref/DataCite, OpenAlex, OpenAIRE, Europe PMC ... and Zenodo candidates'), which is far more specific than the sibling verify_doi or read_document tools. It does not name a sibling to route against, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over campus_research_verify_doi, read_document or search. The conditional clause about OpenAIRE/Europe PMC/Zenodo only matching on an exact DOI is a resolution rule, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer the selection context.

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