get_authors_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'up to 1000' limit, but omits what happens if more than 1000 IDs are passed, how invalid or missing IDs are handled, whether partial results are returned, or any permissions/rate limits. The read-only nature is implied by 'get' but not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Get details for up to 1000 authors at once, given a list of author IDs.' Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. It fully earns its place.

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 simple, and the existence of an output schema covers return values, but the description still leaves critical gaps: the 'fields' parameter is unexplained, and there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_author or search_authors. The description is functional but incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it with correct parameters.

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 for parameter explanation. It implicitly covers 'author_ids' by saying 'given a list of author IDs', but the 'fields' parameter is never mentioned. Without any hint, the agent cannot know whether 'fields' selects a subset of details or controls output formatting. This is a significant gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 states the tool gets details for multiple authors at once, which distinguishes it from the singular get_author sibling. The verb 'get' and resource 'details for up to 1000 authors' are specific, but it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool for single-author lookups, so it doesn't fully capitalize on sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: 'given a list of author IDs' suggests using this when you have multiple IDs, but it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., for a single author use get_author). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance is present only by inference.

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