get_work

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it states that a bare DOI or doi.org URL is accepted, that simplified fields are returned unless raw=True, and that a structured error is returned for nonexistent DOIs. These are useful operational details that annotations do not provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes unique information (input format, return behavior, error handling). There is no redundancy or 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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers input formats, return behavior, and error handling. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what 'simplified fields' includes or provide an example, but the annotations and sibling context allow an agent to infer enough for selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema provides only parameter names and types with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that 'doi' accepts a bare DOI or doi.org URL, and that 'raw' controls whether simplified fields are returned. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Fetch a single work's metadata by DOI,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_work_quality, get_work_references, and search_works by focusing on metadata for a single work identified by DOI.

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 clear context that this tool is for fetching a single work's metadata by DOI, and specifies accepted input formats (bare DOI or doi.org URL). However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or explain when to use this versus alternatives like get_work_quality or get_work_references. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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