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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds the payload shape instead: lab, role, profile URL and short study cards. With no output schema, this is the only source of return-value information, which is genuine added value.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the identifier forms come before the payload description. Every clause carries 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?

For a get-by-identifier lookup with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields adequately, but omits not-found behavior, whether id/author are interchangeable, and any distinction from search_authors. Adequate, not complete.

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 100% and both params ship descriptions with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's identifier examples ('claudio-de-virgilio', full name, author-list form, ORCID) reinforce the schema but add no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3.

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+resource: retrieves ONE profiled author, and enumerates identifier forms (profile id, full name, author-list, ORCID). The word 'One' implicitly separates it from the sibling search_authors, though that contrast is never made explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by context (fetch a single author when you already have an identifier), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to the obvious alternative search_authors for partial/ambiguous lookups. Nothing beyond inference.

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