DOI Citation Verifier

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the multiple databases searched (CrossRef, OpenAlex, etc.) and the verification requirement (only papers with DOIs are returned). This helps the agent understand the tool's scope and output quality, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and key behavior. It lists all databases upfront and specifies the verification requirement without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (searching multiple databases with verification), annotations cover safety (read-only, non-destructive), and schema fully documents parameters, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the multi-source approach and DOI verification, though without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., what fields are included).

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 100%, providing full parameter documentation. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain query syntax or source differences). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 action ('search multiple academic databases'), the resource ('papers'), and a key distinguishing feature ('return only verified, real citations with DOIs'). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on multi-source search with verification, unlike batchVerifyCitations and verifyCitation which likely handle verification of existing citations rather than searching.

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 usage context by specifying it searches 'multiple academic databases' and returns 'verified, real citations with DOIs', suggesting it's for finding reliable academic sources. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (batchVerifyCitations, verifyCitation), which likely handle different verification scenarios.

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