Get publication details by work ID

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the record is 'complete' and 'public' and restricts usage to discovery/review, but it does not disclose authentication, error behavior, or rate limits; given annotation coverage, this is adequate but not especially rich.

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 sentences with no filler. The core retrieval behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a meaningful safety caveat. Every sentence 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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it specifies single-record scope, public data, and intended use. The main gap is that it leaves the relationship to the similarly named get_publication_details implicit, which matters given the sibling context.

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 100%, and work_id is already documented as a 'Canonical Noodle Literature Corpus work identifier.' The description merely repeats 'Noodle work identifier' without adding formats, examples, or behavioral nuance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a clear verb-object pair: 'Retrieve one complete public bibliographic record by Noodle work identifier,' which states exactly what the tool does and the resource it targets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar-looking sibling get_publication_details, so it stops just short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives a clear intended context ('literature discovery and professional review') and an explicit exclusion ('not diagnosis or treatment'). It does not mention when to prefer an alternative sibling tool, so it lacks explicit routing guidance.

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