get_doi_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the context that it returns a 'proposition' (proposal) and performs no deposit. This is consistent with the read-only nature and adds a small behavioral nuance, but the description does not disclose error handling, format details, or any limitations beyond the annotation. The bar is lower due to annotations, and the description provides some value without contradiction.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short phrases. It front-loads the purpose and includes the key distinguishing factor ('Aucun dépôt'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 parameter, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description provides the core purpose and a distinguishing feature. However, it does not describe the return value's structure, possible failure modes (e.g., invalid DOI), or whether the metadata is complete. While adequate for a basic tool, it could be more complete for an agent to confidently call it in complex workflows.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'doi' parameter at all. While the parameter is self-explanatory (a DOI string), the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema field name. For a tool with a single parameter and 0% coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving the agent to infer that the DOI is a standard Crossref DOI.

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 action ('Récupérer') and resource ('proposition de métadonnées Crossref à partir du DOI'), and explicitly notes 'Aucun dépôt' to distinguish it from deposit-related siblings. This allows an agent to immediately understand what the tool does and how it differs from submit/validate deposit 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?

The phrase 'Aucun dépôt' provides a clear exclusion (when not to use), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended use case (retrieving metadata before deposit) is implied by the tool name and sibling context, but not explicitly spelled out, so it falls short of a 4 or 5.

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