List authors embedded in a paper

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting this is a paginated listing operation ('Page through') and specifying the resource scope ('embedded author list'), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose, pagination behavior, and avoids huge records. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or vague filler.

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 5 parameters and a low schema description coverage, but annotations and an output schema are present. The description explains the core listing and pagination behavior but lacks guidance on identifier specification and parameter semantics, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 40%, and the description does not explain critical parameters like identifier, identifier_type, or detail. It only implicitly references the paper via the word 'paper' without providing meaning for how to specify it. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Page through'), the resource ('a paper's embedded author list'), and the intent ('without returning a huge record'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_literature_references by specifying authors embedded in the paper.

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 for when to use this tool: to paginate through an embedded author list and avoid large records. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the pagination-focused wording implies its intended use case well.

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