get_author_works

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states 'Get all publications', but the schema includes pagination (`per_page`), meaning it does not actually return all works without paging. The description fails to mention pagination, response format, or any side effects.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence delivers the primary action, and the second adds context. There is no wasted or redundant information.

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?

The description lacks an explanation of the return value (no output schema provided). It also does not provide enough context for a tool with 5 parameters, such as pagination behavior or sorting options, leaving agents underinformed.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on how the year range or sorting parameters affect results.

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 retrieves publications by a specific author over time, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_works' by focusing on a single author's trajectory.

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 mentions it is useful for analyzing research trajectory and productivity, implying when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or contrast with alternatives such as 'get_author_profile' or 'get_author_collaborators'.

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