author_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the page is 'public' (implying no auth or private-access path), but says nothing about rate limits, failure modes (e.g., unknown author_id), or what the returned page contains. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is an adequate but thin contribution.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with nothing superfluous. It is perhaps slightly too terse — a single clause about what the fetch returns would earn its place — but there is no padding or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only tool whose annotations and schema are both fully populated, the definition is serviceable. However, with no output schema and no note about return content or error behavior for invalid author_id, an agent still has to guess at the result shape.

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% and the single parameter is documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that author_id is required, adding no format, source, or example beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch a public Goodreads author page'), which is clear enough for an agent to identify the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from book_get or the goodreads-search_books siblings, but the resource noun (author page) does most of that work implicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like book_get or goodreads-search_books, nor on how to obtain a valid author_id. The word 'public' hints that no authentication is needed, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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