get_paper_authors

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 states the action without mentioning pagination, ordering, field filtering, or access requirements. The schema's limit/offset parameters imply pagination, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 with no filler. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool, though more details could be added without violating conciseness.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for the tool's full capability. It fails to mention how to use fields, limit, or offset, and does not describe any behavioral nuances. It is minimally viable for a basic call but not sufficiently complete for an agent to fully exploit the tool.

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%, and the description only clarifies the role of paper_id. It does not explain the semantics of limit, offset, or the fields parameter, such as which author fields are available or how pagination works. This provides minimal compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('authors of a given paper'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_paper' (paper metadata) or 'search_authors' (author search).

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 the usage context (given a paper ID) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It does not say when to choose this over related tools such as 'get_paper_references' or 'get_author_papers'.

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