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

With annotations already covering readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description still adds substantial behavioral and data caveats: server-side capping at 100, the dropped duplicate nested author record, significant latency from neighbor computation, and an explicit warning that the `affiliation` field may be stale and must not be used to infer biography or employment.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and then the view semantics; every sentence adds usable information. It is somewhat long and mildly repetitive ('Lacuna's compact author context'), but nothing is pure filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully characterizes both response shapes, which is more than required. The only missing piece an agent needs to invoke correctly is the accepted form of the required author_id_or_url.

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 carry all parameter meaning. It explains the two `view` shapes in concrete terms (what fields differ, what is capped/dropped) and the effect and cost of include_neighbors. It never explains the format or acceptable values of the required `author_id_or_url`, which is the one remaining gap.

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 and resource ('Fetch agent-oriented context for a Lacuna author') and enumerates what the returned context contains (papers, impact_directions). It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the sibling tools get_author_neighbors/get_author_papers, though the include_neighbors note implies the overlap.

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?

Gives clear selection guidance for the `view` parameter by labeling 'context' as default and recommended versus 'full', and flags the latency cost of include_neighbors. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., when to prefer get_author_neighbors over include_neighbors=True), so it is context without exclusions.

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