oa_get_work

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful runtime behavior beyond annotations: it returns the unified envelope with a single item, or NOT_FOUND. This helps the agent anticipate the response shape and missing-record handling.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the action and accepted inputs, the second states the response behavior. The most important information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 lookup tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what inputs are accepted, what the response envelope looks like, and the not-found behavior. No critical operational information 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?

With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the tool description compensates by explicitly naming all three accepted forms for work_id: OpenAlex ID, DOI, and PMID. This fully specifies the parameter's core semantics, though it does not elaborate on formatting rules such as required DOI URL structure.

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 ('Look up'), a specific resource ('one work'), and enumerates the accepted identifier types (OpenAlex ID, DOI, PMID). It clearly distinguishes this tool from search-oriented siblings like oa_search_works and from oa_get_author by focusing on a single work lookup.

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 the tool should be used when the agent already has a known work identifier. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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