search_authors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the entitlement requirement for Scopus, the fields returned per source, and that results are 'ranked by document count' — useful context beyond the schema. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, or failure modes when entitlement is absent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then per-source detail and a closing practical caveat. Dense but each sentence contributes; the only mild bloat is repeating source behavior that the schema already carries.

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 four-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers purpose, source tradeoffs, entitlement constraints, and result shape well enough to invoke correctly. Minor gaps remain around limits and entitlement-failure behavior, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including source semantics and name format. The description's per-source result summaries add some meaning (ranked by document count, name variants) but largely restate what the source enum description already says, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find authors by name') and immediately scopes it with 'optionally narrowed by affiliation.' It also distinguishes itself from search-type siblings by describing exactly what each data source yields, so an agent can tell it apart from search_scopus or search_all.

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?

Gives practical selection guidance: default is Scopus but requires subscriber entitlement, OpenAlex requires none, and 'Common surnames need an affiliation or given name to be useful.' It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to a sibling alternative when this tool is the wrong choice.

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