get_author_by_orcid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get author info,' which implies a read operation, but does not mention any error behavior, response format, required permissions, or whether the ORCID must be exact. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler or repetition. It earns its place with zero wasted words.

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?

For a one-parameter getter with no output schema or annotations, the description gives the core function and parameter meaning, but lacks details about the response content (e.g., what fields are included) or any special conditions. It is minimally adequate but not rich enough for full contextual completeness.

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 input schema fully describes the 'orcid' parameter with type and example, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add additional semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: get author info in TR Dizin by ORCID. The verb 'getir' (get) and resource 'TR Dizin'deki yazar bilgilerini' are specific, and the ORCID parameter distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_authors or get_publication_by_doi.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this tool when you have an ORCID and need author details. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives (e.g., search_authors) or guidance on when not to use this tool, so the guidance is only implicit.

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