check_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that `paper_doi` causes references to be fetched from OpenAlex and checked, which is useful behavior. However, it does not mention potential network dependencies, error conditions, read-only nature, or what 'check' entails beyond the existence of an output schema.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action ('Check a reference list') and then compactly enumerates the exact input options without elaboration.

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 description adequately covers the tool's purpose and input modes, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. It could be more complete with an explicit note about what 'checked' means or typical use cases, but for a three-parameter tool with clear input constraints, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It fully defines each parameter: `dois` as a list of DOIs, `bibtex` as a .bib file's text, and `paper_doi` as a paper DOI whose cited references are processed. This adds complete semantic value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action ('Check a reference list') and the resource ('reference list'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_editorial_status and watch_institution by focusing on reference checking, and further specifies the three accepted input modes.

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 explicitly instructs to provide exactly one of `dois`, `bibtex`, or `paper_doi`, which is essential usage guidance. It also explains the special behavior for `paper_doi` (OpenAlex fetch). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings, but the sibling purposes are clearly different, so this is a minor gap.

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