scopus_search_authors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search operation and query syntax but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, pagination, or error handling. The schema already covers count constraints, but the description does not add beyond that.

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 concise, with only a few sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides key details (field codes, example) and a usage hint. There is no redundancy, and every sentence adds value.

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 description lacks an explanation of the return values (output fields). Since there is no output schema, the description should at least mention what information is returned (e.g., author IDs, names). It also does not address authentication or error scenarios. Given the simple nature of the tool, it is adequate but incomplete.

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%, but the query parameter's schema description is generic ('Author search query'). The description adds significant value by listing supported field codes (AUTHLASTNAME, AUTHFIRST, ORCID, AF-ID) and providing an example, which is not present in the schema. This enhances the agent's understanding of how to construct queries.

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 it searches for author profiles in the Scopus author index. It provides query field codes and an example, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scopus_search (general search) and scopus_get_author (retrieves full metrics from an author ID).

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 explicitly guides the user to use scopus_get_author with the returned author_id to fetch full metrics, indicating when to switch to an alternative. It also includes query construction guidance with field codes and an example, making usage clear.

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