get_editorial_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure (source, evidence URL, date, confidence, conflicts) and possible status values, giving agents a clear picture of behavior. It does not mention error handling or authorization, but for a read-only lookup this is sufficient.

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?

One sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific statuses and result fields. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the key aspects: purpose, possible outcomes, and returned fields, without over-explaining.

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?

The schema has a single 'doi' parameter with no description. The tool description only says 'one work', implying the DOI identifies the work, but does not provide format, examples, or additional guidance. With schema coverage at 0%, the description only partially compensates.

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 retrieves the editorial status of a single work, listing specific status values (retracted, corrected, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_references and watch_institution, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use (when you need editorial status of a work) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. The scope is clear, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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