Scholarly context (references, citations, related)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it uses OpenAlex (open; Crossref fallback), that results are flagged with inLibrary by matching DOIs, and that it is read-only and calls external scholarly APIs. This adds useful context beyond the annotations.

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 two dense but well-structured sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then lists actions, parameters, and use case. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the complexity (four actions, external API, library matching) and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: data sources, parameter behavior, and output features. It mentions result flags and default limit. Some agents might want to know about pagination or error handling, but the description is sufficient.

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 input schema has 75% description coverage (missing description for action but the main text explains it). The description adds meaning by explaining each action (lookup, references, citations, related) and the include_in_library behavior, as well as the default limit of 20.

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 explicitly states the tool explores the scholarly graph (references, citations, related) using OpenAlex with Crossref fallback, and checks against the user's library. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_tools or zotero_semantic_search by focusing on scholarly context for a given DOI.

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 tells the user to provide a doi and an action, lists four possible actions, and explains the include_in_library feature for gap spotting. It mentions read-only and external API calls but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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