Get an INSPIRE author record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is known. The description adds the behavioral detail that public email addresses are only returned with explicit opt-in (include_email), which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as how identifier_type auto-detection works or potential rate limits, so the additional context is minimal.

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, 'Read one author record, with explicit opt-in for public email addresses.' It is front-loaded with the core action and adds the notable email opt-in detail without any wasted words. Perfectly sized for the information it conveys.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, 2 enums, and a required identifier, but the description only addresses the core read action and email opt-in. It does not explain the detail parameter options or identifier_type resolution, which are essential for correct invocation. While an output schema exists, the input semantics are incomplete, making the description insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, with only the identifier parameter described. The tool description mentions email opt-in, which clarifies include_email, but it fails to explain the meaning of 'detail' levels or the 'identifier_type' behavior (auto, recid, orcid). With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not adequately do so.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names the resource 'one author record', which clearly indicates the tool retrieves a single author by identifier. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_authors or list_literature_authors, so it misses the full specificity needed for a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is appropriate when an identifier (recid or ORCID) is known, nor does it exclude cases where searching is more suitable. There is no statement about required inputs or prerequisites, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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