search_by_author

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 but provides minimal information. It mentions this is a 'convenience wrapper' which implies it's a specialized version of search_papers, but doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (paper metadata? full results?), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with 7 parameters, this is insufficient 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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important contextual information about its relationship to sibling tools. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the tool's purpose and relationship to siblings well, but lacks information about what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral characteristics. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more complete context for effective tool use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it only mentions 'author as the primary filter' which is already clear from the required parameter. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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's purpose with specific verb ('Search') and resource ('IEEE Xplore for papers by a specific author'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tool 'search_papers' by noting it's a 'convenience wrapper' with author as the primary filter. This provides excellent differentiation from alternatives.

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 provides clear context by stating this is a 'convenience wrapper around search_papers with author as the primary filter,' which helps understand when to use this versus the more general search_papers. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to other siblings like search_by_publication, which prevents a perfect score.

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