bookshelf_lookup_author

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the 'metadata provider' context, indicating an external service, but does not disclose potential latency, configuration requirements, or other behavioral traits. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 ('Search the metadata provider for authors by term.') with no wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only lookup tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the external source and the parameter purpose. It could explicitly distinguish from local author tools but is otherwise complete.

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 has only 'term' with zero description coverage. The description's 'by term' clarifies that 'term' is the search query, adding some meaning beyond the parameter name. However, it doesn't specify format, partial matching, or special characters, so the compensation is minimal.

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 the specific verb 'search' with the resource 'authors' and a scope qualifier 'the metadata provider' and 'by term'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_author (local list) and lookup_book (different resource).

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 phrase 'metadata provider' implies an external lookup source, which is useful context. However, there are no explicit mentions of when to use this tool versus alternatives like bookshelf_lookup_book or when not to use it. Usage context is implied, not spelled out.

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