Get Author Papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a server-wide rate limit of 3 requests/second and claims results are ordered by 'relevance/recency', but that ordering statement is vague and self-contradictory, and the description says nothing about matching behavior (exact vs. fuzzy author names) or empty-result handling.

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?

Front-loaded purpose in one sentence, then behavior, then a labeled rate-limit note — easy to scan. The ordering sentence ('relevance/recency') is slightly muddy but the structure itself wastes little space.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the basics plus the rate limit. Still missing: how author-name matching works, whether max_results is capped, and pagination behavior — gaps an agent would want before calling it repeatedly.

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 both parameters (author_name, max_results) are already fully documented in the schema with an example and default. The description's phrase 'by the given name' adds no format, syntax, or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (papers by a specific author from arXiv), so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_arxiv or get_related_papers, which also return arXiv papers, leaving overlap unresolved.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools (search_arxiv, get_related_papers) that could also satisfy a paper-lookup need. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.

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