OpenAlex — Get work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention what happens with invalid/malformed IDs, whether the id must be a full URI or accepts partial IDs, whether an OpenAlex ID vs a DOI or other identifier scheme is expected, or any auth/rate-limit considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it leans toward under-specification rather than fruitful conciseness. Two or three additional sentences clarifying ID formats and return behavior would improve it without adding bloat.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify the accepted ID format, error behavior, and what the returned work document contains. The current description only states the basic lookup capability. However, the tool is simple (one param, standard REST GET semantics), which moderately lowers the burden compared to a mutation tool.

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%, and the single 'id' parameter has no schema-level description. The tool description only says 'by id/URI' which hints at the format but doesn't clarify whether it accepts a bare OpenAlex ID (e.g., W2741809807), a full URL, a DOI, or all of these. The agent would need to guess the accepted identifier 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 'Get an OpenAlex work by id/URI' uses a specific verb (get) and resource (work), and the parameter 'id/URI' clarifies the input format. It distinguishes itself from the search sibling (scholarly_openalex_search_works) which retrieves multiple works, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from crossref_get_by_doi which serves a similar look-up role.

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 tool versus alternatives like scholarly_crossref_get_by_doi (which also fetches scholarly works by identifier) or books_openlibrary_get_work. There's no indication of tradeoffs between OpenAlex vs Crossref vs OpenLibrary for work retrieval, nor any scenario where a search sibling should be preferred.

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