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 mentions the output structure (title, authors, etc.) but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or behavior on invalid identifiers.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and output format. However, it could be more structured with bullet points or additional context.

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 (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description provides a clear overview of the resolved metadata fields and supported identifier types. Missing error behavior details reduce completeness slightly.

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 describes the 'text' parameter as identifiers separated by newlines or commas, and the description does not add additional meaning beyond that. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 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 the tool resolves a wide range of academic identifiers (DOIs, PMIDs, etc.) to structured bibliographic metadata including title, authors, journal, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools exportCitation and formatCitation by emphasizing raw JSON output without formatting.

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 hints at usage by specifying 'without formatting', implying it is for raw metadata retrieval rather than formatted citations, which are handled by siblings. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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