get_author_books

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the ordering by popularity, which adds useful context, but it does not explain pagination behavior, the meaning of 'popularity', or any other side effects or constraints beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every piece—resource, scope, ordering—adds value.

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 read tool with three parameters and full schema coverage, the description communicates the core purpose and ordering. It misses a precise definition of 'popularity' and an explicit description of the return payload, but overall it is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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 parameter meanings are already fully documented. The description does not meaningfully add parameter detail beyond tying the endpoint to 'specific author'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('books written by a specific author'), and adds ordering, which makes the tool's purpose easily identifiable. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_author_by_id or get_book_by_id conceptually, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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 implies the usage context: when you have an author_id and want that author's books. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it, such as using search when the author is unknown, or using get_author_by_id when just the author profile is needed.

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