Author Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: one page of native Elsevier JSON with search-results and pagination, plus entitlement-gated access from server-side credentials.

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 purpose and routing rule in the first sentence, then return shape and auth in two compact sentences. The inline query example is redundant with the schema parameter description, a minor wasted sentence.

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 and rich annotations present, the description only needs to add routing rules and environment facts, which it does (precedence, credentials, entitlements, pagination). Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, though the boundary with author_retrieval stays implicit.

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% and the description largely mirrors it (the AUTHLASTNAME/AUTHFIRST example appears verbatim in the query parameter). Precedence of co-author over query is restated from the schema rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 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 Scopus author profiles') plus the two input modes (native query or co-author). The search framing clearly separates it from the retrieval-oriented siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary with author_retrieval.

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 clear conditional guidance: use a native query, or supply co-author to find collaborators, and states that credentials come from the server environment and access depends on Scopus entitlements. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. author_retrieval) or say when NOT to use this search.

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