get_author_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the required input format (Open Library Author Key) and implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't describe potential errors (e.g., invalid keys), rate limits, authentication needs, or the structure/format of the returned information. It adds basic context but lacks richer behavioral details.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently includes the key constraint (using the Open Library Author Key) with a helpful example. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and input requirement clearly, but without annotations or output schema, it doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling or return format, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable use.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'author_key' with its description and type. The description adds minimal value by restating the parameter's purpose and providing an example (OL23919A), but doesn't go beyond what the schema provides in terms of semantics or constraints.

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 specific action ('Get detailed information') and target resource ('for a specific author'), using a precise verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_author_photo' (which retrieves photos) and 'get_authors_by_name' (which searches by name rather than key).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you have an Open Library Author Key and need detailed author information. It implicitly suggests alternatives (e.g., use 'get_authors_by_name' if you don't have a key), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives directly.

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