get_crossref_paper_by_doi

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 discloses that the tool returns 'Paper metadata in dictionary format, or empty dict if not found,' which adds useful behavioral context about the return format and error handling (empty dict for not found). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects like network calls, leaving gaps for a tool interacting with an external API.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement, separate sections for Args and Returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value: the first states the tool's function, the second explains the parameter, the third describes the return behavior, and the fourth provides a concrete usage example. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and return behavior. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to detail metadata fields. However, it lacks context on usage versus siblings and external API behaviors, which are minor gaps for this simple tool.

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. It provides a clear definition for the single parameter 'doi' as 'Digital Object Identifier' with an example format ('10.1038/nature12373'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. This adequately covers the parameter, though it could note DOI format constraints or validation rules for a perfect score.

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's purpose: 'Get a specific paper from CrossRef by its DOI.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('paper from CrossRef'), and method ('by its DOI'), which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_crossref_paper' or 'download_crossref', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools like 'read_crossref_paper', 'download_crossref', and 'search_crossref', it's unclear if this is for metadata retrieval only, how it differs from download operations, or when to prefer it over search tools. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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