s2_search_authors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond these annotations by explaining the return envelope structure, the per-item record_type, and which metrics appear in extra. This gives the agent a clearer picture of the operation's output without contradicting 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 concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. It avoids repetition of the tool name and every sentence adds specific information about behavior or return structure. No filler or redundant content is present.

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 search tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the action, the entity type, and the key return fields. It could be slightly more complete by acknowledging pagination behavior, though the schema already defines limit and offset. Overall, an agent can invoke this tool correctly with high confidence.

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 only partially addresses parameters by indicating the query is an author name. It does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage: limit and offset are not mentioned, and there is no guidance on pagination or result sizing. The schema itself provides descriptions for these fields, but the tool description carries little semantic weight for them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for authors by name.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling search tools like s2_search_papers by stating the exact entity type returned and even notes the record_type as author. This is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need to find authors by name. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over s2_get_author or s2_author_papers. There is no clear when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a stronger score.

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