get_author_profile

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 states it's a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the profile includes (e.g., fields returned). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Retrieve an author's profile'), and every word earns its place by specifying the key constraint ('by Author ID'). No unnecessary details or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'author's profile' entails (e.g., fields like name, affiliation), potential errors, or return format. For a retrieval tool with no structured output, more context is needed.

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 minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and clearly documents the single parameter 'author_id' as 'The Scopus Author ID'. The description reiterates 'by Author ID' but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('author's profile'), specifying it's by 'Author ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_citing_papers' or 'search_scopus' by focusing on profile retrieval rather than citations or searches. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_abstract_details' might also retrieve data by ID), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid Author ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'search_scopus' for finding authors by name. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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