get_semantic_scholar_author_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic read operation but omits any details about response shape, error behavior, or required fields. Minimal behavioral context beyond the trivial 'get' action.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It is concise without being a tautology.

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 getter with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks guidance on when to use it over siblings and the meaning of the 'fields' parameter. The output schema covers return structure, but the description provides no extra context.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only clarifies the 'author_id' parameter ('by Semantic Scholar author ID'). The optional 'fields' parameter is not explained, and the description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema's types already show.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one author by Semantic Scholar author ID'), clearly distinguishing it from batch retrieval and search tools. It precisely states the tool's scope.

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 usage when you have a specific author ID and need a single author's details, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search or batch tools, nor mention when not to use it.

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