get_author_papers

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the return structure (list of papers plus aggregate metrics like h-index) and parameter constraints (sort options, size range). It does not explicitly state read-only nature or potential side effects, but the details provided are sufficient for a retrieval tool.

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 yet informative, with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by a structured explanation of parameters using bullets and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers the resource, action, parameter details, and high-level return value. The presence of an output schema (indicated by signals) further reduces the need for detailed return explanation.

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 all parameters. It does so effectively: author_name format ('Last, First'), author_id format (InspireHEP BAI), sort options ('mostrecent' or 'mostcited'), and size range (1-100, default 20).

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 explicitly states 'Retrieve publication history and citation metrics for an author,' providing a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool's output (papers plus metrics) and mentions sort and size parameters, which helps differentiate it from siblings like search_papers.

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 clear guidance on how to use the two identifier parameters (author_name and author_id), including format examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for similar tasks, such as search_papers.

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