get_author

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description redundantly confirms read-only. It adds genuinely new behavioral context: the name-resolution ambiguity, and the shape of the response payload since no output schema exists. It does not cover error cases when no identifier matches.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and lookup keys, then return shape, then the alternative. No filler and every sentence carries 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (bio, birth/death year, counts, book list with title/year/rating). Combined with the annotation safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: at-least-one identifier requirement, the top-match resolution semantics for name, and that books_limit caps the embedded book list. The other params add no extra syntax detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get an author) plus the three accepted lookups (id, slug, name). It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling search_books, which is named as the multi-candidate alternative.

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?

Explicitly states the constraint 'provide at least one' identifier, explains the disambiguation behavior of a name lookup ('resolves to the top search match'), and routes the agent to search_books(query_type='Author') when comparing several candidates. Both the when-to-use and the alternative are named.

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