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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic function but omits any safety assurances (e.g., read-only), result ordering, pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements. The verb 'list' hints at a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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?

Two concise sentences where the first states the core purpose and the second gives a direct usage hint. No irrelevant details or fluff.

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?

The description is too sparse given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions. It does not clarify that author_id is likely required (even though schema lists it as optional), mention the optional limit's effect, or describe the response structure. Significant gaps remain for agent to use it reliably.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. The instruction to use author_id from author_search adds crucial context for the author_id parameter. However, the 'limit' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving its purpose (likely pagination) ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' with resource 'papers' and qualifier 'by author', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like author_search (which finds authors) and search_papers (which searches generally).

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 provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Use author_id from author_search.' This guides the agent on how to obtain the required parameter and implies a workflow, indirectly separating this tool from author_search. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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