semantic_scholar_paper_authors

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that Markdown is the default output format and authors are returned in listed order, which is consistent with annotations. No contradictions found.

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 brief with three sentences, each adding value: purpose, differentiation, and output formatting. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers input parameters, output format, and example usage adequately for the tool's complexity, making it complete.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., paper_id formats, limit range, api_key deprecation). The description only adds an example paper_id and duplicates limit info, adding minimal new meaning beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Get full author profiles for a paper's authors.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting with the abbreviated author list from semantic_scholar_get_paper and linking to semantic_scholar_get_author, providing specific differentiation.

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 description explains when to use this tool vs semantic_scholar_get_paper by highlighting that it returns complete profiles. It provides an example paper_id and default limit, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools like semantic_scholar_author_batch.

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