goodreads_author

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 clearly states the tool returns a normalized profile with specific fields and that data is credential-free. However, it does not disclose potential error states (e.g., invalid author ID), rate limits, or any side effects. The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema (which only describes the parameter).

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 two sentences long with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second enumerates return fields. Every word earns its place, making it easily parseable for an AI agent.

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?

The tool is simple (single parameter, no output schema). The description covers the core purpose and return data comprehensively for a lookup tool. It could optionally mention the return format or error handling, but given the low complexity, it is largely complete. Sibling tools exist but are not discussed, which slightly reduces completeness.

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% (the single parameter 'id' has a description 'Goodreads author id'). The description implicitly identifies the parameter as the author identifier but adds no new semantics about its format, source, or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 tool retrieves a Goodreads author and lists the specific profile fields returned (bio, birth/death dates, etc.). The verb 'Get' is specific, and the resource is unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like goodreads_author_books (which returns books by an author) by focusing on author profile data.

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 implies use when you need an author's profile details, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool versus alternatives (e.g., goodreads_search for finding authors by name, or goodreads_author_books for book listings). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and the context of credential-free access is useful but not sufficient for comparative decision-making.

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