Annotate Dois Crossref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not say whether this writes annotations back to pages, whether it requires auth/permissions, how missing DOIs are handled, or whether CrossRef rate limits apply. The mutation-vs-read nature of 'annotate' is left entirely ambiguous.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the source and verb lead, and the field list trails efficiently. It is appropriately sized, only slightly terse for a tool with unstated side effects.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and undefined behavior on lookup failure, the description is not sufficient for an agent to predict side effects or downstream results. It explains what fields are fetched but not what the tool does to the corpus or what it returns.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents doi_list and its 200-item cap. The description's field list describes the output enrichment, not the parameter, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (annotate), resource (DOIs), and the data source (CrossRef), then enumerates exactly which fields are added (title, authors, journal, year, publisher, type, is_referenced_by_count, url). The named source implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling annotate_dois_europmc and annotate_dois_bibtex, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 'through CrossRef' qualifier gives implicit routing guidance among the three DOI-annotation siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or fallback if a DOI is absent from CrossRef. Usage is inferable from the source name alone.

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