check_published_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by naming the external sources (CrossRef and OpenAlex), the reported fields, and the fact that it checks whether the published version is already in the library. No contradictions with annotations.

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 earning its place: purpose, usage context, and output/source details. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no unnecessary 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?

Given the annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers behavior and inputs for a check-like tool. The main minor gap is the lack of explicit item_keys semantics, but overall the agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly explain that item_keys refers to the preprint item keys to check, nor does it clarify the accepted formats beyond what the schema already shows. The usage context implies the meaning but the description adds little parameter-level value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('preprints') and clearly states the outcome: determining if a final journal version exists and reporting DOI, journal name, and library presence. It is distinct from siblings like check_retractions by focusing on publication status rather than retractions.

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?

It provides an explicit use case: when the user has bioRxiv/medRxiv/arXiv papers and wants to know if a final journal version exists. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide tool selection.

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