get_author_production

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reveals the include_coauthors parameter returns frequency counts, explains the default sort order and its alternatives, and discloses the pagination limit. These are traits beyond the read-only flag and enrich the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured: it leads with purpose, provides a brief narrative on the IdHAL benefit, includes a clear pagination pointer, and then lists parameters in a compact 'Args' block. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy, and the critical pagination note is front-loaded.

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 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema available, the description is complete. It covers every parameter's meaning and usage, explains the pagination workaround, and does not need to detail return format since an output schema exists. No gaps that would hinder correct invocation remain.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the entire burden of parameter explanation. It does so thoroughly: id_hal format is given as 'prenom-nom' with an example, year_from/year_to are marked as inclusive, doc_type lists valid examples, sort explains both options and default, rows notes the max of 100, and include_coauthors describes its output. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Récupère une page de la production d'un chercheur via son IdHAL'. It specifies the unique identifier and its purpose (avoiding homonyms, listing publications). It also differentiates itself from search_publications by explicitly naming it in the pagination context, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: it states when to use this tool (ideal for listing a person's publications) and provides a concrete alternative for pagination beyond 'rows' — 'search_publications(query='authIdHal_s:"prenom-nom"', start=...)' — with a specific query pattern. This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-switch instructions.

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