Crossref — Get work by DOI

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention return format, error behavior for invalid/unknown DOIs, rate limits, or what metadata fields are included. 'Fetch' implies read-only safely, but nothing explicit is stated about behavior beyond the bare action.

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?

A single efficient sentence with zero waste. It's brief to the point of under-specification, but as pure conciseness it's clean and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

Despite being a simple one-parameter tool, the zero-annotation, zero-schema-description, no-output-schema context means the description alone must fully specify behavior. For a tool that fetches scholarly metadata by DOI, the description should note what metadata is returned, how to handle malformed DOIs, and alternatives. The single sentence is not complete for an agent deciding whether/how to invoke.

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. The single parameter 'doi' has no schema description, and the tool description only repeats the word 'DOI' without adding format guidance (e.g., must include the doi.org prefix? lowercase? DOI encoding requirements). This is a missed opportunity to document the sole parameter's expected format.

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 'Fetch Crossref work metadata by DOI' has a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('Crossref work metadata'), and it names the key input (DOI). However, it doesn't distinguish it from the sibling scholarly_crossref_search_works or scholarly_openalex_get_work tools, which serve similar purposes across Crossref/OpenAlex.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs the sibling crossref search tool or openalex_get_work. There's no mention of when DOI is known versus when to use the search tool to find a DOI first. The use case is only implied (you have a DOI).

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