spraay_research_papers_by_doi

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds cost ($0.001) and source (OpenAlex), and clarifies parameter passing ('directly as typed arguments'), which goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 only three sentences, front-loads purpose, cost, and behavior, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence is valuable.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, cost, read-only, and parameter passing. It is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the 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?

The schema description for 'doi' is minimal ('doi parameter'), and the tool description does not elaborate on what the DOI should be (e.g., format, examples). The generic instruction about passing fields does not add specific semantic meaning.

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 paper metadata by DOI using OpenAlex, which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spraay_research_scholarly_by_doi and spraay_research_papers_search.

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 mentions cost and read-only nature, providing some context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like spraay_research_scholarly_by_doi. No exclusion criteria or alternative names are given.

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