get_author_publications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no pagination behavior, no result-shape hints, no rate-limit or auth notes, no statement of what happens at max 200 results. For a list-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and the required identifier front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It stops just short of 5 because there is no structural elaboration (e.g., pagination or sorting guidance) to pair with the brevity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description should explain pagination, sorting defaults, and the general result shape, but it does none of that. An agent knows what the tool returns only at the vaguest level.

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 100% and every parameter (count, start, sortBy, sortOrder, authorId) is documented with defaults and ranges in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (publications by author) plus the identifier required (Scopus Author ID). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_paper_by_id or get_citations, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that an Author ID must be obtained via search_authors or get_author_by_id first), and no alternatives such as search_papers for broader queries. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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