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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that by listing the returned fields, though it says nothing about paging behavior or the access-tier cap already hinted at in the 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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the routing hint trailing. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the sibling routing rule and a human-readable summary of results. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so name, limit, and offset are all documented, including the tier-cap caveat and paging semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that search is by name, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find researchers by name') and enumerates what comes back (name, ORCID iD, OpenAlex id, affiliation, counts), which makes it clearly distinct from get_paper/search_papers. It also names the sibling get_author and the condition that selects it, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative path ('Use get_author with an ORCID iD for the profile and top papers'), giving a concrete when-to-go-elsewhere rule. It stops short of covering ambiguous-name or partial-match scenarios and does not distinguish itself from search_papers for topic-driven lookups.

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