get_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 indicates this is a read operation ('Get') but does not mention response format expectations, error behavior for invalid IDs, rate limits, or any other quirks. 'Detailed information' is vague about what is included.

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 very concise, with a clear first sentence and a short parameter note. Every word is functional and there is no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 simple interface (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main gaps are the lack of explicit usage context and alternative routing, but these are not essential for calling the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds important semantic meaning to the single parameter by explaining author_id is a 'Semantic Scholar author ID.', which goes beyond the schema's bare title 'Author Id'. It compensates for the schema's 0% coverage, though it could have provided an example or format hint.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about an author'), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like search_authors and get_author_papers because it targets author details rather than searching or listing papers, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_authors (for finding an author ID) or get_author_papers (for an author's publications). The context of use is only implied by the description.

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