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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the data source (api.openalex.org), that no auth is required, the CC0 metadata license, and the specific fields returned. It does not cover pagination or rate-limit behavior, but that is a minor gap here.

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?

Three dense sentences: the first states purpose and scale, the second states return fields, and the third gives use case plus data source/auth. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter search tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and access constraints, leaving no essential gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 the schema already explains query (researcher/author name) and per_page (result count with range and default). The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond restating that search is by display name, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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: search 90M+ researcher/author records by display name. It also states what is returned (OpenAlex author ID, ORCID, works count, citations, h-index, institution) and ties the tool to the downstream openalex.works_search flow, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 description gives clear intended use cases: identifying a researcher before filtering openalex.works_search results, or getting author-level impact metrics. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name an alternative author-search sibling, but the context 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.