Resolve an INSPIRE external identifier

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and scope. The description adds the specific output concept (canonical record identity) and accepted identifier types, but does not go deeper into behaviors like error handling or what happens with unknown identifiers. This adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 efficiently states the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema present), the description provides the essential purpose but misses important context: the meaning of the 'detail' parameter and when to prefer this over sibling search tools. The output schema likely covers return values, but parameter semantics are incomplete.

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 only 33% (only 'identifier' has a description). The description does not explain 'detail' or 'identifier_type' beyond what their enum names suggest. 'detail' is ambiguous (identity vs summary vs record) and the description fails to compensate for this low coverage, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic 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?

The description clearly states the tool resolves DOI, arXiv, or ORCID to a canonical INSPIRE record identity. This specific verb (resolve), resource (external identifiers), and output (canonical identity) fully distinguish it from sibling tools like search_literature.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: when you hold an external identifier (DOI, arXiv, ORCID) and need the corresponding INSPIRE record identity. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently clear that an agent would know not to use this for generic searches.

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