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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are grouped by period, include a short note, and include the books credited to each author. It does not mention pagination or the language fallback behavior, but with annotations present this is still a strong disclosure.

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 front-loaded and only three sentences long, with no wasted framing. It does repeat the `era` enum values already present in the schema, which is mildly redundant, but it remains easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the shape of the result: authors grouped by period, each with a short note and credited books. Parameter behavior is fully covered by the schema, and annotations cover safety. Only minor details such as pagination or language behavior are left to the schema or unstated.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a little context by calling out `era` as a filter and repeating its allowed values, but it does not mention the `language` parameter at all. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: listing authors the tradition names, grouped by period, with notes and credited books. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from list_works by saying to pass an author's `id` to list_works to see books. An agent can identify the tool's scope and sibling relationship without opening the 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?

It states exactly when to call it: when the user asks who wrote something or wants the works of one acharya. It also gives the alternative route for book-level results: pass the author's `id` to list_works. The usage boundary is clear and actionable.

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