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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond them by disclosing the two-bucket response shape: results contain authors with a profile page, while in_author_lists are bare name matches without a profile. It does not mention result caps or pagination, but those live 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?

Compact and front-loaded: the query capability comes first, the return-shape explanation second. Slightly dense parenthetical stacking, but every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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, so the description's explanation of results vs in_author_lists does the work of describing the return values, and the schema handles limits and pagination. For a read-only search tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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 limit/offset/query are already documented, and next_offset pagination is spelled out in the offset description. The description's mention of accepted query forms largely restates the schema's own examples, so it adds little beyond the 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 gives a specific resource (people/authors in the Atlas) and enumerates the exact query dimensions (full name, author-list form, ORCID, lab), which makes the tool's intent unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_author, so an agent must infer when to search versus fetch.

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?

Acceptable query forms are implied through the parenthetical examples ("Claudio De Virgilio", "De Virgilio C", ORCID, lab), which gives practical guidance on how to call it. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_author or search_studies, and no exclusions are given.

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