autocomplete_author

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Search' implies a non-destructive read, but nothing is said about authentication, result ordering, or behavior when 'term' is omitted. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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, zero-required autocomplete read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and intended use. It could still note behavior on empty 'term', but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 both 'term' and 'limit' (including the default of 10) are already fully documented. The description adds no matching semantics, case sensitivity, or result-ordering detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Author instances for autocomplete suggestions'), which distinguishes it from autocomplete_article/autocomplete_mcptoken by resource name. It does not explicitly call out the sibling distinction, but the resource qualifier is unambiguous.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful for populating FK/M2M field widgets,' which tells the agent this is a suggestion-lookup helper rather than a general search. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives for when this is the wrong choice, so it falls short of a 5.

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