get_authors_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and the include dependency behavior, but does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or response characteristics. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear Args section. The example for include is useful and not padded. Every sentence contributes 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-only endpoint with two parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers the endpoint path, both parameters, optional include behavior, and the relationship between include values. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter-documentation burden. It explains id as a path parameter and thoroughly documents include with allowed values, the dependency of series on items, and a concrete example. The id explanation is minimal but sufficient given the first sentence establishes the author context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get an author by ID.' It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_authors_by_id_image, delete_authors_by_id, or patch_authors_by_id, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when to use the tool: when you need a single author by ID. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools such as list_search_authors or get_libraries_by_id_authors, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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