Search external author metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is external enrichment (bios, images, provider ids) and that results are 'candidates', which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention potential side effects like external network calls or rate limits. It is decent but not fully transparent.

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?

Three sentences, with the core verb and resource in the first sentence. The caveat about external vs. library authors is front-loaded and essential. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff 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?

For a search tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's domain (external metadata), the nature of results (candidates), and the niche use case. It does not describe the return format, but that is largely implied by 'candidates' and given the absence of an output schema, 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters (q, limit, region, providers). The description adds contextual meaning (external enrichment) but does not provide parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already includes. Baseline 3 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 explicitly states it searches external metadata providers for author-biography candidates by name, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from library-author tools by clarifying it is external enrichment data, not library authors, and names alternatives (search_books / list_authors). This fully clarifies the tool's specific purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Useful for 'tell me about this author'') and clearly states what it is NOT for alongside specific alternative tool names ('use search_books / list_authors for those'). This gives unambiguous usage direction versus siblings.

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