datasets_goodreads_authors_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It openly discloses the dataset's incomplete coverage and crawl-derived nature, which is useful behavioral context. But it does not describe return format, pagination behavior, or side effects, and the sort enum is redundant with the schema.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the primary action. The coverage caveat is valuable, but the sort enum sentence is redundant with the schema and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately introduces the resource and its caveats, but it falls short of explaining what results are returned or how the search relates to sibling tools like datasets_goodreads_authors_item. The schema covers parameter details, so the main gap is missing output/response context.

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. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the sort enum values already defined in the 'sort' parameter description. No extra guidance on how to combine parameters is provided.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search Goodreads authors dataset' and 'Searches the crawled public Goodreads author profile index.' It clearly distinguishes this search tool from sibling item/facets tools by emphasizing it searches an index and noting the dataset's provenance.

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 about the dataset's scope: 'Authors are discovered as a byproduct of the books crawl... not a full catalog.' This tells the user when to expect limitations, effectively guiding against using this tool for authoritative/full-catalog author searches. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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