get_paper_by_doi

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the fallback order (CrossRef then Semantic Scholar) and the condition for saving to library (only if abstract available). This provides adequate transparency for a simple metadata lookup tool.

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 concise, with a clear two-sentence overview followed by structured Args/Returns. No unnecessary repetition. Could be slightly more structured, but it's effective.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: what the tool does, how it resolves DOIs, and return format. It omits edge cases like multiple DOIs or errors, but it's sufficient for basic use.

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 description adds meaning to the 'doi' parameter with an example and explanation of its format, which is not present in the input schema (just 'string'). Since schema coverage is 0%, this additional context is valuable.

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 clearly states the tool fetches paper metadata by DOI, includes multi-source fallback strategy, and distinguishes from siblings like `search_papers` (search-based) and `download_by_cite_key` (uses cite key). The verb 'Get' and resource 'paper metadata by DOI' are specific.

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 explains the fallback logic and saving condition, implying when this tool is appropriate (when DOI is known). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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