Obtener doctrina por DOI / OpenAlex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a Chilean citation, APA citation, abstract, and DOI/PDF links, which gives some behavioral insight. However, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is read-only (likely but unstated). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists output elements efficiently.

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 tool has 3 parameters (none required) and no output schema. The description does not clarify whether doi or openalex_id are alternatives or both needed, nor does it detail the output format beyond the listed items. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 33% (only the 'formato' parameter has a description). The description does not explain the doi or openalex_id parameters, nor their relationship (e.g., whether one must be provided). The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Recupera' (retrieve) and the resource 'obra doctrinal', specifying the output includes Chilean citation, APA, abstract, and DOI/PDF links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buscar_doctrina (search) and obtener_articulo (article retrieval).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like buscar_doctrina (which likely searches for doctrinal works).

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