Get By DOI

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the core read-like behavior and the 'best matching' caveat, but it does not describe failure behavior, whether the operation is strictly read-only, or what happens when no match is found. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. The primary action and the key output element (catalog_id) are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core behavior and the important catalog_id linkage. Missing sibling differentiation is the main gap, but the low complexity makes this largely complete.

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 provides no description for the single 'doi' parameter (0% coverage), so the description's mention of 'Resolve a DOI' adds minimal semantic context. It correctly suggests how the parameter is used, but it does not provide format requirements, examples, or edge-case handling.

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 states a specific action ('Resolve a DOI') against a specific resource ('the Mendeley catalog') and names the returned artifact ('best matching paper metadata, including catalog_id'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like mendeley_get_document and mendeley_search_catalog, since the DOI-based lookup is explicit.

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 intended use is implied by the description: use it when you have a DOI and need Mendeley catalog metadata or a catalog_id for downstream actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as mendeley_search_catalog or mendeley_get_document.

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