scival_author_lookup

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 only says 'lookup,' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention result format, pagination, count behavior, name matching semantics, or any limitations. This is a minimal disclosure rather than a transparent one.

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 focused sentence with no filler, and it fronts the key information: what is being looked up and how. It could be more informative without hurting conciseness, but as written it is efficiently structured.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling list containing similar author tools, this description is not complete enough. It omits return behavior, count semantics, disambiguation guidance, and any differentiator from get_author_profile or other search tools. The agent can guess the basic intent but lacks adequate context for reliable invocation.

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 description adds meaning to the required 'query' parameter by indicating it should be an author name, which the schema itself does not say. However, the optional 'count' parameter is not addressed, leaving its semantics to the schema's default and type. Partial compensation for 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 identifies the resource (SciVal author) and the lookup operation, and specifies that lookup is by name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_author_profile, but the resource and lookup action are clear enough.

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 phrase 'by name' implies the tool should be used when searching for a SciVal author using a name query, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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