oa_search_authors

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the unified envelope and per-author fields such as affiliations, work/citation counts, and h-index in extra. This goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides the key output detail. Every sentence contributes value without padding.

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 annotations cover safety and idempotency, the input schema documents parameters, and an output schema exists, the description provides enough high-level context. The mention of the unified envelope and extra fields helps the agent interpret results. It falls just short of perfect completeness by not steering toward sibling tools, but that gap is minor.

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?

With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only clarifies the query is an author name; it does not address page, per_page, or institution_id filtering. The nested schema contains some property descriptions, but the description itself adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'OpenAlex' and the scope 'authors by name', clearly distinguishing it from sibling search tools for works, sources, and institutions. It adds that results are author records with affiliations, counts, and h-index, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 use when an agent needs to find authors by name, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like oa_get_author for known IDs or oa_author_works for an author's works. Context is present, but no exclusions or routing guidance is given.

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