get_author

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns a JSON string with specific fields (name variants, institutions, publication count), implying a read-only operation. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval, the behavioral implications are clear.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It is concise but includes necessary details. It could be slightly more streamlined, but overall it is well-organized.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what input it needs, and what output to expect. It does not mention error responses, but for a retrieval tool, this is acceptable.

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 input schema provides no description for the single parameter 'author_id' (0% coverage), but the description adds valuable examples (e.g., 'euler.leonhard' or 'gauss.carl-friedrich'), making the expected format explicit.

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 'Retrieve', the resource 'profile information for a zbMath author', and the method 'by their profile ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_document and get_software, which focus on documents and software respectively.

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 that the user needs the author ID to use the tool, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites beyond having the ID.

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