search_authors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return shape (affiliations, publication counts, citation counts, h-index), which partly compensates for the missing output schema. However, it says nothing about rate limits, authentication requirements, or the pagination behavior implied by start/count.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and scope come first, the return payload second. No filler and nothing that repeats the tool name.

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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description usefully covers the returned profile fields and the schema covers all three inputs. It stops short of the usage/navigation context an agent would want when several author-related siblings exist.

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%, so the schema already documents query, count (with max 200), and start. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema's own examples, so the baseline 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 (Search) and resource (authors on Scopus) and enumerates what the results contain. It is distinguishable from get_author_by_id (lookup by identifier) by the word 'search' plus the name-based query, but it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling it most overlaps.

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 ('by name') but never says when to choose this over get_author_by_id or search_by_affiliation. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no guidance for follow-up tools such as get_author_publications.

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