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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or any limitations (e.g., exact vs fuzzy matching, multiple author disambiguation).

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?

The description is two short sentences, with the action stated first and no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and output, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a minimal list of return fields but omits important behavioral context like whether the query is required, result limits, or how multiple matches are handled. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps.

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?

The input schema already describes the only parameter 'query' as 'Author name', and the description repeats this by saying 'by name'. No additional semantic detail is added, such as format expectations or handling of empty queries, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool finds researchers by name, using a specific verb and resource. Mentioning the return fields (h-index, publications, affiliations) distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_papers or citation_graph.

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 intended use is implied by 'Find researchers by name' but no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this over alternatives like author_papers or citation_graph. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative names are mentioned.

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