semantic_scholar_get_author

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral details beyond stating that publications are optional, which is already evident from the 'include_papers' parameter. It does not disclose any additional traits like rate limits or data freshness.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it omits useful context like output format or enumeration of return fields, which could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter, several optional parameters, an output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output structure, differentiate from similar tools, or mention any prerequisites (e.g., valid author_id format).

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 does not add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. Each parameter already has a description in the schema (e.g., 'author_id' with 'Semantic Scholar author ID'), and the top-level description merely mentions 'optional publications list' without detailing other parameters like 'papers_limit' or 'api_key'.

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 'Get author profile with optional publications list' clearly identifies the verb (Get), the resource (author profile), and optional feature (publications list). Among siblings like semantic_scholar_search_authors (search) and semantic_scholar_author_batch (batch), this tool is distinct for retrieving a single author's profile.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., semantic_scholar_search_authors for searching, semantic_scholar_author_batch for batch retrieval). The description lacks any context for selection.

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