semantic_scholar_author_batch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 1000-item limit, which is useful, but it does not disclose response format, error behavior, or partial-failure semantics. It provides modest value beyond annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and includes the key constraint. No wasted words or redundant 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?

For a batch retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. It does not explain return value structure or error handling, but the max-1000 limit and read-only nature are clear. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is acceptable but not rich enough for a higher score.

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%, meaning the description does not explicitly document the parameters. The schema itself contains detailed descriptions for author_ids and response_format, but the description merely implies the list of IDs with 'multiple authors' and 'max 1000'. It does not compensate for the low coverage and adds no real semantic value beyond what the schema already 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve multiple authors') and adds the key constraint 'single request (max 1000)', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool semantic_scholar_get_author. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage context is only implied by the name and description—it is a batch variant of get_author, but no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer it over repeated single calls or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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