poetry_search_by_author

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the data source (PoetryDB), which is mildly useful; it says nothing about result volume, partial-name matching, or error behavior on unknown authors.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the search target and filter appear immediately. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough for an agent to call it correctly. Only marginal niceties (author-name matching behavior, expected result shape) are missing, and no output schema exists to offset that.

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% and the single parameter is documented with examples (Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that the input is an author name, adding no new semantics such as whether matching is case-sensitive or substring-based.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (poems) with an explicit filter (author name), which maps cleanly to the tool name. It doesn't reference siblings like poetry_search_by_title or poetry_random, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 context of use is implied by the name and description — look up poems when you know the author — but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over poetry_search_by_title or poetry_random, and no note about matching behavior (exact vs fuzzy author names).

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