get_author_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states what data is returned but does not disclose behavior such as read-only nature, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling for invalid IDs. Moderate transparency.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs with no redundant information.

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 has only one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned data (publications, metrics, coauthors). It is complete for a simple retrieval tool, though it could mention pagination or filtering if applicable.

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 already describes the scholarId parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing an example ID format, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Google Scholar author profile', listing specific outputs like publications, citation metrics (h-index, i10-index), and coauthors. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search_author and list_papers.

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 usage for retrieving detailed author information by ID but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like search_author for finding IDs or list_papers for paper lists. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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