list_dois

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, whether pagination applies, or what 'registered' versus 'unregistered' means. The status values are helpful but not enough to make the tool's behavior transparent.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and the status values in a compact code block. Every part serves a purpose, though the status list could have been integrated more naturally.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about return values, filtering behavior, and parameter usage. It only covers the status filter, leaving limit and journal semantics ambiguous. The description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently in varied scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It adds meaning only for 'status' by listing possible values, while 'journal' and 'limit' are left entirely unexplained. This is partial compensation but not sufficient for the parameter set.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find the DOIs registered for a journal.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_journals or get_submission, which target different resources. However, the word 'registered' is slightly inconsistent with the status list that includes 'unregistered,' so the core purpose is clear but not perfectly precise.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, comparison to sibling tools, or typical use case context. The status list offers some input guidance but not usage direction.

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