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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the return scope (author, biography, held works) but does not disclose behavior for missing IDs, invalid slugs, or potential response variations.

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?

A single sentence that states the purpose and the accepted input with no filler. The key scope information is front-loaded before the input detail.

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 simple read-only lookup with one parameter, the description covers the core necessary information: what is returned and how to identify the author. It is not fully complete because it does not specify that the slug is passed through the 'id' parameter or describe error behavior, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that the 'id' parameter can be either an author id or a slug, which goes beyond the bare schema definition. It stops short of giving format examples or explaining how slug resolution works, but for one parameter it adds meaningful meaning.

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 returns an author, their biography, and the works Siftivo holds for them, with 'get' as the verb. It distinguishes the author resource from sibling tools like get_book and get_series without needing to open their schemas.

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 when to use the tool by noting it accepts an author id or slug, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For a simple identifier-based lookup, this is acceptable but not fully guided.

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