get_semantic_scholar_paper_authors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds only 'offset pagination' as a behavioral detail, but fails to disclose anything about safety, rate limits, default field behavior, or response structure beyond what the output schema already provides. Minimal behavioral insight is given.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and notes pagination. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary filler, though its brevity does limit the amount of useful information conveyed.

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 tool with four parameters and a custom output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits crucial context such as the expected paper_id format, the meaning of 'fields', and pagination corner cases. Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to provide the operational context an agent needs to select and use the tool effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the four parameters (paper_id, limit, offset, fields). The mention of 'offset pagination' is generic and does not clarify the semantics of 'fields' or the required 'paper_id' format.

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 and resource ('List the authors of a paper') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_semantic_scholar_paper_details or get_semantic_scholar_author_details. The scope is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different sibling tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent without clear decision-making context.

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