Search INSPIRE authors

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: email addresses are always excluded from results. This is a specific privacy constraint that is not implied by the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and a key constraint. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

While the description is clear and the output schema exists, it does not explain pagination, detail levels, or query syntax beyond what the schema provides. The missing descriptions for three parameters make the tool less complete than it could be, but sufficient for basic usage.

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 only 25% (only the query parameter has a description). The tool description does not compensate for the undocumented page, detail, or page_size parameters, providing no additional parameter semantics.

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 tool searches public INSPIRE author records, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_author (singular fetch) and search_literature (literature search) by focusing on author search.

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: use this to search public author records. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intent is unambiguous given sibling tool names like get_author.

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