semantic_scholar_paper_authors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which inform the agent about safety, idempotence, and open-world semantics. The description adds that it returns 'full author profiles,' implying detailed data, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond the 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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is concise, but could be slightly expanded to include more context without losing efficiency.

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 tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the basic purpose but lacks details on output content, usage examples, or how to interpret results. The openWorldHint suggests results may vary, but the description does not clarify this.

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 mention any parameters, and the schema_description_coverage is 0% (the description text covers no parameters). Although the input schema itself has good parameter descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, as required by guidelines. It adds no 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full author profiles', and the context 'for a paper's authors'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'semantic_scholar_get_author' (single author) and 'semantic_scholar_author_batch' (batch), as it specifies it is for a paper's authors.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'semantic_scholar_get_paper' or 'semantic_scholar_author_batch'. There is no mention of prerequisites, optimal scenarios, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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