list_author_names

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

The description goes slightly beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying 'distinct', implying deduplication behavior. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether results are paginated, how sorting or search filtering applies, or the scope of distinctness.

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 with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though it could offer slightly more context without becoming verbose.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description omits essential context such as the effect of pagination parameters, the meaning of 'distinct' in scope, and whether search is supported for filtering. This is a minimal description that leaves the agent uncertain about typical usage patterns.

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% and the description does not compensate. It provides no meaning for the five parameters (page, size, sort, search, unpaged). The phrase 'distinct author names' does not explain what any parameter does.

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 'List' and identifies the resource as 'distinct author names', clearly stating the tool's function. It also includes 'distinct', which adds a deduplication qualifier that helps distinguish it from tools like list_authors that might return full author objects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is suitable for autocomplete or unique-name lookup, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like list_authors, list_author_roles, etc.

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