autocomplete_authors_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions rapid autocomplete via OpenAlex but does not disclose specifics such as what happens on no match, multiple suggestions, rate limits, or authentication needs. Minimal behavioral insight.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple autocomplete tool with output schema present, the description covers purpose, source, and use case. However, it lacks parameter descriptions, which are important. Mostly complete but not perfect.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description does not mention the name or limit parameters at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. This is a significant gap.

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 it rapidly autocompletes author names via OpenAlex to find the correct OpenAlex ID, and positions it for disambiguation before tracking works. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_authors_tool or retrieve_author_works_tool.

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 explicitly says 'Useful for disambiguation before tracking works,' which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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