openlibrary_get_author

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states a safe read operation, but omits what happens if the author ID is invalid, whether authentication is needed, rate limit considerations, or the structure of the response. This is a significant gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description may be minimally complete. However, it lacks guidance on return values (likely an author object) and does not reference sibling tools for context, which a more complete description would include.

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. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it is consistent and the example 'OL23919A' in the schema is helpful.

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 'Get an author from Open Library by ID.' clearly states the verb (Get), resource (author), and scope (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like openlibrary_search (which searches) and openlibrary_author_works (which gets works) by specifying retrieval by a unique identifier.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as openlibrary_search or openlibrary_author_works. There is no mention of prerequisites, input validation expectations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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