Check Open Access

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, the description adds significant behavioral context: the DOI resolution process, return value when no DOI found (doi=null, reason='no_doi'), rate limiting behavior, and authentication options. No contradictions with annotations.

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 comprehensive but somewhat verbose. It includes all necessary information without redundancy. Front-loading the core purpose ('Check whether a single scholarly work is openly accessible...') followed by usage, behavior, and details. Could be slightly trimmed without loss, but earns its length with relevant content.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: return format (with fields like isOa, oaStatus, bestLocation, locations), edge cases (null result when no DOI), authentication options, rate limits, and idempotency. No gaps identified for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 100% (the single parameter 'id' is described in schema). The description adds substantial meaning: accepted identifier types (DOI, PMID, PMCID, arXiv, ISBN, ADS bibcode), resolution behavior for non-DOI inputs, length constraints, and explicit prohibition of batching. This greatly enhances the schema's minimal description.

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 checks open access status and best legal version. It uses specific verbs ('check whether') and identifies the resource ('single scholarly work'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that no sibling overlaps this functionality, particularly differentiate from resolveIdentifier which returns metadata but not OA status.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios ('user asks is this open access?', 'where can I read this for free?') and clear instructions to avoid batching ('loop one call per identifier'). It also mentions rate limits and API keys. However, it does not explicitly list when NOT to use this tool vs siblings, though it implies resolveIdentifier is for metadata only.

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