get_paper_by_doi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only metadata lookup via external APIs, but does not state authentication needs, rate limits, failure behavior, or return characteristics for a tool with no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though arguably too terse given the missing parameter and behavioral details.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits source-selection semantics, default behavior, expected response shape, and error conditions.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It mentions DOI lookup and the OpenAlex/Crossref sources, but does not explicitly name the 'doi' parameter, map source values to the 'source' parameter, or mention the 'crossref' default.

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 uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('one DOI') and names the metadata sources. It distinguishes a single-DOI lookup from broader sibling tools like search_papers, though it does not explicitly mention sibling routing.

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 phrase 'one DOI' implies this is for a single known identifier rather than discovery, which is useful implied usage guidance. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules or named alternatives such as search_papers.

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