get_crossref_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the operation is a fetch, implying read-only, but does not elaborate on potential errors (e.g., invalid DOI), network dependencies, or whether the DOI should be URL-encoded. The behavior is straightforward, but the description adds no context beyond the basic action, earning a mid-range score.

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 lines, front-loaded with the action and scope, and includes an example for the parameter. Every word earns its place; there is no wasted text. It is a model of conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and provides an example DOI, leaving no significant gaps for invocation. The 'full metadata' phrase sets appropriate expectations for the return value, and the output schema covers details.

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 only parameter 'doi' has zero schema description coverage, but the description provides an example ('10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.29'), which adds format guidance and clarifies expectations. This efficiently compensates for the missing schema detail, though it does not fully explain DOI formatting rules or validation.

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 'Fetch full CrossRef metadata for a single work by its DOI' – a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('CrossRef metadata'), and scope ('single work by DOI'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_crossref, which is a search operation, and other get_ tools for different providers.

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 clearly implies use when you have a DOI for a specific work and need its complete metadata. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but given the sibling search_crossref tool, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage. No exclusion criteria are provided, but none are critical for this simple case.

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