list_authors

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: fuzzy search, per-collection counts, default collection, and facet limitation. However, it does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or any side effects, which is acceptable for a simple search but could be improved.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value. The second sentence is slightly dense but packs important constraints. No unnecessary fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should clarify the return structure (e.g., list of authors, each with count). It mentions 'per-collection counts' but does not specify the format. Pagination behavior (limit parameter) is not addressed. The tool's completeness for an agent is inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only indirectly describes collection_ids (default and behavior) and implies query is used for name search. The 'limit' parameter and exact query format are not explained, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 authors by name with fuzzy/typo-tolerant matching. It is distinct from sibling tools (no other author-specific tool), but it does not explicitly mention the return format (list of authors with counts), leaving slight ambiguity.

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 context on defaults (collection_ids defaults to ['anthology']) and a behavioral caveat (facets only for first collection), which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_papers or list_collections.

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