get_work

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses that the tool returns all information, including complete author lists, abstract, topics, bibliographic data, etc. It does not mention error handling or performance, but the behavioral transparency is high for a read tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. It uses four sentences efficiently, listing key details without redundancy. Slightly verbose in enumerating fields, but still appropriate.

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 no output schema and the complexity of a work object, the description thoroughly explains what will be returned, including all critical fields. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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% and already explains the parameter format (OpenAlex ID, DOI, or URL). The description repeats this without adding significant new meaning, so value added is limited.

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 retrieves complete details of a specific work by ID or DOI, contrasting with summarized search results. It specifies verb (get), resource (work), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_works.

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 explicitly advises using this tool for detailed information about a specific paper, especially for identifying PIs or corresponding authors. It implies when not to use (when summary is enough) but doesn't name alternative tools explicitly.

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