semantic_scholar_paper_authors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: author ordering, limit bounds, default values, and Markdown-vs-JSON output options. No contradiction with 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 compact—three sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place by adding either differentiation, parameter detail, or output behavior, with no filler.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers return contents, output format, author ordering, limit behavior, and ID formats. Minor omissions like error handling or rate limits are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Although context reports low schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful parameter context: a concrete paper_id format example, the 1-1000 limit with default 100, and response_format options. The schema also provides detailed per-parameter descriptions, so the two complement each other well.

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 tool's verb and resource: 'Get full author profiles for a paper's authors.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the abbreviated author list in semantic_scholar_get_paper and connects to semantic_scholar_get_author via returned author IDs.

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?

It provides a clear contrast with semantic_scholar_get_paper, implying when to use this tool over that one, and includes a concrete example paper_id. However, it does not explicitly enumerate exclusion cases or alternative tools for related scenarios, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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