search_authors

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

No annotations provided, but description clarifies read-only nature (returns data) and behavior (name-based search). Could be more explicit about sorting and pagination defaults, but schema covers those. No side effects or auth issues mentioned, but likely unnecessary.

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?

Three succinct sentences: purpose, return data, usage context, alternative. No fluff. Front-loaded with essential 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?

No output schema, but description mentions key return fields (h-index, citation count, affiliation). Lacks mention of other typical fields like author ID, but adequate for a search tool. Pagination implied via schema per_page.

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 baseline is 3. Description does not add parameter-specific details beyond schema, but it summarizes return data relevant to parameters. No need for higher score.

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?

Description clearly states action (Search) and resource (authors/researchers), specifies return data (h-index, citation count, affiliation), and distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_authors_by_expertise' by noting when to use each.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Best for finding experts when you know the name. Use search_authors_by_expertise to find experts by research area.' Clearly states usage context and alternative.

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