resolve_identifier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (scopus_id, eid, doi, pii, title), which is real value with no output schema, but says nothing about failure modes for unknown/ambiguous identifiers, permission requirements, 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?

Two sentences, tightly front-loaded: capability first, usage second. No boilerplate or repetition of the name.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and why to use it. It only lacks detail on error/ambiguous-ID behavior, which is a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (baseline 3). The description adds only marginal value by implying any of the four ID types is accepted and auto-detected, without explaining the id_type override behavior.

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 (Resolve) on a specific resource (any document identifier), enumerates the accepted ID types (Scopus ID, EID, DOI, PII), and spells out the returned cross-reference set. This clearly separates it from sibling search/retrieval tools.

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?

Gives concrete use cases: obtain a DOI for cross-linking with OpenAlex/Crossref, or normalize an ID before calling other tools. It clearly places the tool as a pre-step utility, though it does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. when the ID type is already known and other tools accept it directly).

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