crossref_get_work

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result is "full metadata" (as opposed to a subset), and says nothing about failure behavior for unknown DOIs, not-found handling, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action, the resource and the lookup key in that order. Nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter read this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the phrase "full metadata" is doing a lot of unspecified work — an agent cannot tell whether abstracts, references, licenses or author affiliations are included.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage including a concrete example (10.1038/nature12373), so the schema carries the load. The description's contribution is limited to reinforcing that the DOI identifies the paper; it adds no format or normalization guidance beyond that.

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+resource (get metadata) scoped to a single paper identified by DOI, and names the source (Crossref). It does not distinguish itself from crossref_search_works or openalex_get_work, so an agent must infer the split from the names alone.

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?

"By DOI" implies the required input and therefore the situation in which the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs crossref_search_works or openalex_get_work guidance and no stated exclusion. Usage is inferable but not taught.

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