campus_research_verify_doi

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that it checks registered correction/retraction notices, compares specific metadata fields, and that a missing Crossref record is not proof of fabrication. It also explicitly disclaims certification of peer review or scientific validity, preventing over-interpretation.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the lookup operation, the comparison behavior, and the important caveats. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description gives enough operational detail for an agent to call it and interpret a missing-record result. It doesn't describe the return shape, and the 'candidate citation' is not provided in the input schema, but the caveats reduce the risk of misinterpretation.

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 only parameter, doi, is self-explanatory from the tool name and description. The description adds meaning by specifying that it is an exact DOI looked up in Crossref. It does not give format examples, but for a single, low-ambiguity parameter this adequately compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('look up'), a specific resource ('DOI in Crossref'), and the verification purpose ('compare the returned title, authors and year to the candidate citation'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling verification tools by anchoring it to exact Crossref DOI lookup.

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 makes it clear the tool is for exact DOI verification against Crossref, including checking for correction/retraction notices. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide a when-not-to-use list, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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