resolve_doi

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds further context: it returns metadata in markdown or JSON, includes a link, and provides a fallback hint when a DOI is not resolvable. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary usage details. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, and the structure (purpose, usage, limitations) is clear. Could be reduced by a sentence or two without losing information.

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 required parameter, clear output), the description is complete. It explains the return format (metadata with license and link), usage boundaries, and provides a concrete chaining example. No missing information.

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 input schema already includes descriptions for both parameters (doi and response_format). While schema description coverage is reported as 0%, the actual schema has good descriptions. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it resolves a DOI via Crossref to full publication metadata (title, ISSN, ISBN, authors). It specifies the verb 'auflösen' and resource 'DOI', and distinguishes from siblings by explaining how its output feeds into swisscovery_search, a sibling tool.

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 tells when to use ('Stark bei internationaler Forschungsliteratur') and when not ('für deutschsprachige CH-Bildungspublikationen ist Crossref schwach'). It also provides a concrete alternative workflow using swisscovery_search, which is a sibling tool.

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