search_authors

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the search action and gives no information on case sensitivity, matching behavior, pagination, ordering, or result structure. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but adds minimal 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, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It could include parameter or usage details without becoming bloated.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and sibling tools offering alternative search/retrieval paths, the one-line description leaves out essential context about pagination, parameter semantics, and when to choose this over related tools. An output schema exists, but that does not compensate for the missing contextual guidance.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage and 4 parameters. The description adds meaning only to the 'query' parameter ('by name'), leaving limit, offset, and fields unexplained in either the schema or description.

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 identifies verb ('Search') and resource ('authors') with the search criterion ('by name'), distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_author or search_papers at a basic level. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings or define the exact search scope, so not a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use search_authors versus search_papers, get_author, or get_authors_batch. The phrase 'by name' implies a use case, but it provides no context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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