get_author

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details' and does not mention read-only nature, error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a GET tool with zero annotation coverage, more context is needed.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. No wasted words, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is a simple single-author lookup, and an output schema exists (though not shown), so return values need no explanation. However, the description lacks guidance on the 'fields' parameter and does not provide alternatives or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among similar tools. It is a minimal but not fully complete description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the required parameter 'author_id' (identified by author ID), but completely omits the optional 'fields' parameter, whose purpose (likely field selection) remains ambiguous. Only half of the parameters receive semantic explanation.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get details about a single author identified by their Semantic Scholar author ID' – a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('details about a single author'), and identifier ('Semantic Scholar author ID'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_author_papers (papers of an author) and search_authors (search by other criteria).

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 clear usage context: you need an author ID to call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when you lack the ID, but the condition is evident. This meets 'clear context, no exclusions' but falls short of explicit alternative guidance.

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