search_by_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'exact or partial author matches,' which is a useful trait beyond the schema. However, it omits critical behavior such as output format, default fields when 'fields' is not provided, pagination/limits, case sensitivity, and behavior when no matches are found. For a search tool, these are significant gaps that could mislead an agent about the response structure.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the partial-match detail is the only non-essential addition, which is still valuable. Perfectly concise for the information conveyed.

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 simple search tool with only 2 well-documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate: it tells the agent the core query mechanism. However, it lacks details about the response shape (since no output schema exists) and does not mention whether results are limited or how the optional 'fields' parameter affects output. Given the many sibling search tools, a few more sentences about expected behavior would round it out.

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 100%: both parameters have descriptive text ('Author name or partial name' and 'Optional output fields...'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the partial-match behavior already in the schema. Per baseline for high coverage, this is a 3.

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 is explicit: verb 'find' + resource 'poems by author name' plus matching behavior ('exact or partial'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_by_title or search_by_lines, which target different criteria. No ambiguity remains.

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 purpose itself implies the use case (searching by author), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions (e.g., 'if you know the title, use search_by_title'). While the description is self-sufficient for identifying the right tool, the lack of explicit routing to siblings leaves this dimension at a baseline level.

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