search_semantic_scholar_authors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions offset pagination but does not disclose whether authentication is needed, rate limits, sorting behavior, or what constitutes a match (e.g., exact vs fuzzy). This is minimal transparency for a search tool.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes the key pagination detail, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully support correct usage. While an output schema exists, the description does not explain the meaning of 'fields', when to use this over sibling tools, or any constraints like result limits or error conditions. The context is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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. It adds meaning by specifying the query is an author name and indicates offset/limit pagination. However, the 'fields' parameter remains completely unexplained, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 searches for authors by name, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like batch_get_semantic_scholar_authors and get_semantic_scholar_author_details by focusing on name-based searching with pagination.

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 name-based author searches but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives such as batch_get_semantic_scholar_authors or autocomplete tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving usage context only implied.

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