List authors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are paginated, include book counts, and return author IDs for follow-up. This goes beyond a bare 'list' statement, though it doesn't mention sorting or error behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then giving concise follow-up guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 simple list tool with two self-descriptive parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (authors, book counts, IDs) and how to proceed. It could mention ordering, but that's not critical. Overall, it feels complete for its scope.

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 already fully describes both parameters (page, size) with clear descriptions and defaults. The description adds little to parameter semantics beyond noting pagination, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('the library's authors'), and adds specifics: paginated and with book counts. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning follow-up use with get_author and get_author_books, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool: to list authors and obtain IDs for further detail via get_author or get_author_books. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions (e.g., when to use search_author_metadata instead), so it lacks full when-not guidance, but the usage is clear and helpful.

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