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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the tool reads public authors, returns a page of works, and returns 'author: null' when the author is missing.

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 two concise sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds the key edge-case return behavior with no wasted words.

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 tool with rich annotations, complete parameter schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameter expectations, and missing-author behavior. It does not describe the shape of the returned author object or works list, but the tool is still adequately specified for correct invocation.

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 the 'id' and 'page' parameters are already documented in detail. The description reinforces that the ID is numeric and that 'page' pertains to a page of works, but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a public author by numeric ID and a page of their works.' It clearly distinguishes get_author from siblings like get_work and list_authors by naming the author resource and its associated works page.

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 'by numeric ID' implies the tool is used when an ID is already known, and the schema notes the ID comes from a search or list result. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_authors or get_work.

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