discover_doi_paper

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait (does not download links, implying a read-only discovery step) but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or what the result contains.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. The phrase 'public body candidates' is slightly opaque jargon, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Low complexity (one required param, no output schema, no annotations) means a light description is tolerable, but it still omits return expectations and how the discovered metadata should be consumed, leaving the agent to infer the next step.

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% for the single 'doi' parameter, so the description needs to compensate and doesn't — it gives no format, resolution, or provenance guidance for the DOI value. Mentioning 'exact DOI' hints at strict matching but is not developed.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (DOI metadata / public body candidates), so an agent knows this resolves a DOI rather than adding or loading a paper. It does not explicitly name siblings like workspace_add_doi_paper or workspace_import_doi_candidate, so it stays at a 4.

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 only usage signal is the negative constraint 'never download links,' which rules out link-fetching but doesn't say when to pick this over the DOI-import/add siblings. No prerequisites or sequencing guidance is offered.

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