spraay_research_scholarly_by_doi

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral details: cost ($0.001 per call) and the scope ('Full Crossref metadata'). No contradictions with 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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, cost, read-only hint, and calling convention.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers all necessary context: what it does, cost, read-only nature, and parameter passing. Complete for a simple lookup 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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'doi'. The schema description is minimal ('doi parameter'), and the tool description does not add meaning beyond stating to pass the fields as typed arguments. The parameter name is self-explanatory, so score is baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states it returns 'Full Crossref metadata for any DOI'. The verb 'get' is implied, and the resource is specific. Distinguished from siblings by specifying 'Full Crossref metadata', which is more comprehensive than related tools like spraay_research_papers_by_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?

Implies usage when a DOI is available but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like spraay_research_scholarly_search or spraay_research_papers_by_doi. No when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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