enrich_paper

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

The description reveals the two-step process (resolve DOI from S2, then query OpenAlex) and states that results are cached for 30 days. These details go beyond the annotations, which already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, and non-destructive. It does not mention potential failure modes or rate limits, but the provided behavioral context is valuable.

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 concise at three sentences, with the purpose in the first sentence, workflow in the second, and caching behavior in the third. No extraneous words or repetition of schema/annotations. It is well-structured and immediately informative.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, workflow, and caching. It does not explain what happens if the DOI cannot be resolved, but that is a minor gap. Overall, the description is complete enough for effective selection and invocation.

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 already covers both parameters with usage details, including the identifier format and the allowed enrichment fields. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond the phrase 'requested enrichment fields,' which merely restates the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Fetch OpenAlex metadata to supplement Semantic Scholar data.' It uses a specific verb (fetch) and resource (OpenAlex metadata), and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on searching, retrieving papers, or citations. The workflow of resolving the DOI and querying OpenAlex adds further specificity.

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 implies the tool is used when Semantic Scholar data needs supplementing from OpenAlex, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for comparison, such as get_paper or search_papers, so it stops short of a full usage guide.

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