crossref_work_detail_by_doi

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one useful fact—no API key is needed—and implies a read-only, single-object retrieval, but it does not mention error handling, response format, or any limits. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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: it states the action and object first, then adds a useful prerequisite ('No API key needed'). There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 one-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for basic invocation: an agent knows what to call and that no key is required. But it omits expected return shape, DOI format guidance, and behavior for invalid or missing DOIs, leaving modest gaps.

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 the undocumented DOI parameter. It only restates 'by DOI' without providing a format, example, or validation hint beyond the property name already in the schema. The added semantic value is minimal.

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 operation ('Look up'), the resource ('a single work'), the source ('Crossref'), and the lookup key ('DOI'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crossref_work_search_by_query, which searches by query rather than by a specific identifier.

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 'single work ... by DOI' implies the tool should be used when the agent already has a DOI and needs that specific work. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or how it differs from other detail/lookup siblings, so usage guidance is only implied.

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