s2_get_author

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return shape ('unified envelope with a single author item') and the NOT_FOUND outcome, which is beyond what the annotations provide.

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 no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the return behavior is stated in a compact, informative second sentence.

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 simple one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the input key, the single-item return envelope, and the not-found case; only explicit alternative routing to search tools is absent.

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?

There is only one parameter, author_id, and the description repeats its purpose ('by Semantic Scholar Author ID') rather than adding new details like ID format or how to obtain it. The schema also provides a minimal description, so combined coverage is sufficient but not enhanced.

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 a specific verb ('Look up'), a clear resource ('one author'), and the exact key ('Semantic Scholar Author ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like s2_search_authors, which search by query rather than lookup by ID.

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: use this when you have an Author ID and need a single author. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over s2_search_authors or mention any exclusions, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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