get_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes a read-only operation ('Get') but does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or error 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?

The description is brief (two sentences) with clear examples, front-loading the core purpose. Every part is useful with no wasted words.

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?

The description states it gets 'full metadata', and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, it lacks context on safety, authentication, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a complete picture.

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 schema has no description for the 'doi' parameter (0% coverage), but the description and examples explain it is a DOI string. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though more detail about format or validation could be beneficial.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full metadata for a single work' identified by DOI, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_works (for searching multiple works) and get_work_agency (for agency info).

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 implies usage when you have a DOI and want full metadata, with examples. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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