Author Retrieval

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: comma-separated author_id/eid collapse into one native batch request, the response is raw Elsevier JSON, and availability is gated by entitlements. The closing clause about pagination and superseded-profile resolution is useful but terse ('are explicit' does not say what actually happens).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the identifiers and batch behavior before the caveats. Slight deduction because 'Pagination and superseded-profile resolution are explicit' is a vague signpost rather than an informative statement.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description still covers the essentials an agent needs for a 10-parameter retrieval call: accepted identifier forms, batching, entitlement gating, and the existence of explicit pagination/alias controls.

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 every parameter (view, alias, startref, refcount, field, ver, reqId) is already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the batch semantics of comma-separated IDs and the entitlement caveat, not new per-parameter meaning.

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 ('Retrieve Scopus author profiles') plus the three lookup keys (author_id, eid, orcid), which implicitly separates it from the sibling author_search. However, it never names author_search or otherwise explicitly contrasts the two, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the presence of specific identifiers suggests when this tool applies, and 'view access depends on entitlements' hints at a prerequisite. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to author_search when only a name is known, which is the key routing decision an agent faces with these siblings.

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