get_work_quality

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the specific behavior of returning the registration agency, which is useful context. However, it discloses no other behavioral traits such as what 'raw' actually does, rate limits, or potential variations in output. Since annotations cover the main safety profile, the description meets a baseline but adds limited extra context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose immediately. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score for brevity and structure.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the primary purpose but omits details about the 'raw' parameter and does not clarify what the response looks like. The name mismatch also reduces completeness. For a low-complexity tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, and the description only implicitly references the 'doi' parameter through the phrase 'for a DOI'. It gives no explanation for the 'raw' boolean parameter, which remains ambiguous. The schema itself provides no descriptions, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Look up the registration agency for a DOI') with a specific resource (DOI) and gives examples (Crossref, DataCite). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_work or search_works. However, the tool name 'get_work_quality' suggests a different purpose, creating minor confusion and the description does not explicitly address the name mismatch.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies usage when you need a DOI's registration agency. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools, so the agent receives no decision support.

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