get_doi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds the 'Default full-corpus scan' trait, which is useful, but it does not discuss permissions, mutability, or performance implications beyond the scan. It provides moderate transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and result. No wasted words; each clause adds information about behavior or output.

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 simple lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers the core function and a key behavioral default (full-corpus scan). It lacks details on max_scan's precise impact and does not mention any return format, but the output schema covers that. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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. It adds meaning to max_scan by stating 'Default full-corpus scan', clarifying the null default. However, the doi parameter is left to the schema, and no explicit parameter details are given. It partially compensates, but not fully.

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 ('Lookup one DOI') and resource ('in local JSONL'), and mentions it returns summary + QA issues, distinguishing it from search tools like search_dois. It also notes the default full-corpus scan, adding scope specificity.

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 implies usage for a single DOI lookup, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_doi_qa or search_dois. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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