s2_author_papers

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that the endpoint is paginated and that result.total is only the returned count (TOTAL_NOT_REPORTED), not a true total. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 short sentences with the core purpose first and the return-value caveat second. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundant restating of 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?

With an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: a specific author's papers with pagination, plus a nonobvious total-count caveat. It does not mention sort order or explicitly route agents away from sibling tools, but those are secondary for a simple paginated lookup.

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?

The description's 'by one author' and 'paginated' map naturally to author_id and the limit/offset parameters, and the nested input schema provides the concrete constraints and defaults. The tool description does not add much parameter-level detail beyond this, but it gives enough orientation for a correct call.

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 identifies the resource (papers) and the selection criterion (one author), and the pagination note adds operational context. It lacks an explicit action verb and does not name sibling tools, but an agent can distinguish it from s2_get_author, s2_search_papers, and s2_citations by its author-scoped paper listing.

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 phrase 'Papers by one author, paginated' implies the tool should be used when the agent already has an author identifier and needs that author's papers. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it point to alternatives such as s2_search_papers for keyword search or s2_get_author for author metadata.

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