Look up one work

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing specific record components such as retraction and correction notices and a newer published version, which is valuable beyond the annotation metadata. No contradictions exist.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and then enumerates inputs and outputs economically. The list of returned fields makes the sentence longer but each item adds useful detail. No redundant filler is present.

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 lookup tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides enough operational context to invoke the tool correctly. It covers accepted input formats and the nature of the returned record advances. It does not discuss error cases or ambiguity handling, but these are less critical given the simple parameter surface.

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 single parameter 'id' has 100% schema description coverage, listing DOI, arXiv id, PMID, URL, title, or citation. The tool description essentially repeats the same accepted input forms, adding little meaning beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns the record') and a concrete resource ('one work'), and enumerates both accepted inputs and returned fields. It clearly identifies the tool's scope as a single-record lookup, setting it apart from the sibling check tools that validate references or 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?

The description implies usage when a record for a DOI, arXiv id, PMID, or citation is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of check_references or check_retractions. It does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing conditions.

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