Check DOIs for retractions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about being fast and using specific data sources, and mentions 'not_in_crossref' as a possible status, which hints at behavior for unknown DOIs. This adds some value but does not deeply describe side effects or limitations beyond the 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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, limits, and data sources; the second lists possible statuses. Every word earns its place, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 low complexity (one parameter, batch operation), the existence of an output schema (which presumably details return structure), and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It provides all necessary context: what is checked, limits, data sources, and possible statuses. No critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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 clearly explains the single parameter (dois) is an array of DOIs to be batch-checked, up to 200. This adds meaning beyond the schema's structural constraints, even though it doesn't detail DOI format beyond length.

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 ('DOIs'), and clearly enumerates the statuses returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on retractions, partial retractions, expressions of concern, and corrections, while check_references and lookup_work serve different purposes.

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 explicit context: batch operation, up to 200 DOIs, and data sources (Crossref and Retraction Watch). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over check_references or lookup_work, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is clear enough for a straightforward batch check.

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