Get Doi Count

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. It usefully discloses the output shape ({"count": n}), but says nothing about whether the operation is pure/read-only, whether auth or rate limits apply, or how malformed input is handled. For a stateless count function the risk is low, so this is adequate but not 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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, output shape stated tersely. 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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't document return values, and for a one-param pure count tool the definition is nearly complete. A note on edge cases (empty string, non-DOI text) would round it out, but nothing essential is missing.

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 0% with a single unnamed-prose 'text' param. The description compensates slightly by revealing the input should be a wikitext string, which is real signal beyond the schema's bare 'string' type, but it adds no format or syntax guidance.

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?

Specific verb (Count) and resource (DOIs) with the input type named (wikitext string), which distinguishes it from the sibling count tools like get_isbn_count and get_url_count by the resource it targets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the resource is precise enough that an agent can route correctly.

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 states only what the tool does. It never says when to reach for this versus get_any_count or the other count/extraction siblings, and offers no exclusions or preconditions.

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