get_paper_by_doi

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' clearly signals a read-only lookup, and it helpfully lists the return fields (authors, affiliations, keywords, subject areas), but it says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on a missing/invalid DOI.

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, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence, while effectively enumerating return fields, is useful given the absence of an output schema.

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 one-parameter, high-coverage-schema lookup tool, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns, which compensates for the missing output schema. The only real gap is disambiguation from the sibling get_paper_by_id.

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 100% and the schema already documents the doi parameter with an example, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (paper) with the exact lookup key (DOI), so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling get_paper_by_id, leaving the agent to infer which identifier to use when.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'using its DOI' - the agent can infer it applies when a DOI is available, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_paper_by_id, search_papers, or get_abstract, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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