resolve_identifier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the converter's PMC-only coverage, the Europe PMC fallback that applies to DOIs but not PMIDs/PMCIDs, and the exact meaning of NOT_FOUND and UNVERIFIABLE, including the important caveat that NOT_FOUND does not mean the paper is nonexistent.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences are dense but entirely devoted to failure-mode semantics that an agent cannot get elsewhere. No filler.

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 tool with a full output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it converts, coverage limits, fallback behavior, and error-code interpretation.

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 the schema already documents the accepted formats (DOI, doi.org URL, PMCID, cued PMID). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a precise verb+resource: mapping one of DOI/PMID/PMCID to the other two via the PMC ID converter. The scope is narrow and unambiguous, and clearly distinct from siblings like search_literature, citing_papers, and retraction_status.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use it when you hold one identifier and need the others. It never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so the agent must infer the routing from the sibling names.

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