search_authors

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'search' without disclosing behavior such as pagination, ordering, authentication needs, or rate limits. It does not even clarify whether the search is read-only or if any side effects exist. This is a significant gap for an agent relying on the description.

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, concise sentence that states the core purpose without any unnecessary overhead. Every word contributes to understanding, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter descriptions, the description is far too sparse. It does not mention response format, pagination behavior, ordering options, or any additional context needed for correct invocation. The tool is simple, but the description still leaves major gaps.

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 schema description coverage is only 25%, with only 'query' having an explanation (author name). The tool description adds no parameter information, so the agent must infer meaning for page, limit, and order. While the enum for order provides some clues, the lack of compensation from the description is a clear deficiency.

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: searching academicians and authors in TR Dizin. It uses a specific verb ('ara') and resource ('akademisyen ve yazar'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that search publications, journals, or institutions.

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 implies the tool is for searching authors by name, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_author_by_orcid or search_publications. Context (TR Dizin scope) is given, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are offered.

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