list_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully warns that invalid filters return an error and that undeclared relation paths silently fail to work, which is real behavioral value. However, it says nothing about permissions/auth, result-set caps, default return shape, or that this is a non-mutating read — gaps that annotations would normally cover.

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-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then uses a compact lookup list and a bulleted field inventory. It is long, but virtually every token carries syntax the agent needs; the only mild redundancy is re-listing field types the schema could imply.

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 5-parameter, nested-object, no-annotation, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers the hard part (filter/lookup syntax and discovery via describe_author) thoroughly. It leaves return shape and pagination behavior implicit, which is the main remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes well beyond the schema by enumerating the complete lookup vocabulary (iexact, contains, gt/gte, in, range, isnull, date parts) and the relation-path rule for the `filters` object. It adds little for limit/offset/search/order_by, which the schema already documents.

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 ('List Author instances') plus the four capabilities it supports (filtering, searching, ordering, pagination), and enumerates the underlying model fields. An agent can immediately distinguish this from get_author, create_author, and delete_author without opening any schema.

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 concrete routing guidance for the tricky part of the tool: relation paths and custom filters only work when declared in list_filter/date_hierarchy, and the agent is told to consult describe_author's admin_config.filters to discover them. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_author or history_author, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not/alternatives.

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