Scholarly context (references, citations, related)

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial context: it queries external scholarly APIs, uses Crossref as a fallback, never touches the user's library unless include_in_library is set, and describes the expensive scanning behavior. This goes well beyond the structured annotation data and is consistent with it.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, exclusions, action values, optional flag behavior, and safety. It front-loads the core purpose and then logically expands into usage details without 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?

The description gives strong context for selecting and invoking the tool, including action semantics and external data source behavior. It does not describe the result shape beyond 'works' and citation counts, but given the complexity of four action modes and no output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 schema covers parameter names and types, but the description adds crucial meaning for each parameter: the doi prefix tolerance, the exact meaning of each action enum value, the default and role of limit, and the behavioral tradeoff of include_in_library. This significantly enriches the schema, especially for the action parameter.

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 identifies the tool as exploring the external scholarly graph around a paper via OpenAlex and Crossref, with explicit action modes (lookup, references, citations, related). It distinguishes itself from sibling library tools by stating it does NOT search, list, or read the Zotero library.

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 states what the tool does not do and names alternative tools (zotero_search_items, zotero_semantic_search, zotero_get_item, zotero_list_tags) for library operations. It also clarifies when to enable include_in_library and how the default avoids expensive library scanning.

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