check_doi_qa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Full QA issue breakdown' without clarifying whether the tool performs scanning, what side effects or costs exist, or whether it is read-only. The max_scan parameter hints at scan behavior, but the description does not explain it.

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 sentence with no fluff, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is too sparse: it omits crucial details such as parameter semantics and behavioral context, so the conciseness comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete overall. It does not explain the tool's operation, the role of max_scan, or when to use it instead of related tools. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, this level of description is insufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It mentions 'one DOI' but does not explain the doi parameter's expected format or the meaning/default of max_scan. This is a significant gap given the optional parameter is wholly undocumented.

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 states that the tool provides a 'Full QA issue breakdown for one DOI', which clearly identifies the resource type (DOI) and scope (single DOI). It is more specific than a mere tautology, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_doi or export_health_issues.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_doi, search_dois, or export_health_issues. It only implies usage for a specific DOI's QA issues, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools.

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