get_libraries_by_id_authors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the HTTP method and path template, which is not a behavioral trait beyond what annotations imply. It discloses no additional behavior such as pagination, filtering, or response list structure, so it adds minimal value beyond the structured data.

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 very short and front-loads the purpose clearly. The 'Args' section is somewhat redundant with the input schema, but it does add the 'Path parameter' annotation. No fluff, but the manual repetition of schema details could be trimmed slightly.

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 one-parameter GET tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core need: the agent knows what it does and what the `id` parameter refers to. However, it lacks any usage context, and the absence of details about potential auth requirements or response pagination is a minor gap given the tool's low complexity.

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 description identifies `id` as a path parameter and the endpoint `/api/libraries/{id}/authors` implies it is the library ID. This adds context beyond the input schema, which only provides the property name 'Id' with no description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates by clarifying the parameter's role, though it could be more explicit about what kind of ID this is (e.g., UUID).

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get all authors in a library.' It also includes the HTTP endpoint, which reinforces the operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_libraries_by_id_collections or get_authors_by_id, so an agent can tell what it does without opening schemas.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools such as list_search_authors or get_authors_by_id. It provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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