search_by_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it wraps the underlying search with a field qualifier, sorts by newest-first by default, and allows sorting by relevance. No contradictions are present.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted text. Each part serves a purpose: stating the core function, explaining the wrapping mechanism, stating default behavior, and offering an actionable alternative.

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 tool's moderate complexity, an output schema exists, and the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, behavior, sorting options, and differentiation from siblings. No gaps remain.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default sort ('Newest-first') and the effect of the 'relevance' option ('surface most-cited / highest-impact first'), enhancing understanding beyond the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a clear resource ('author's PubMed-indexed publications'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'search_pubmed' by explaining it wraps with the '[au]' qualifier, making the tool's unique purpose explicit.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool for author-specific searches to avoid partial-name matches, and mentions the default sort order and the option to switch to 'relevance'. It implies 'search_pubmed' is for broader queries, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use information.

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