semantic_scholar_search_authors

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate these. It adds value by disclosing the default response format ('Markdown by default', 'response_format='json' for raw JSON') and pagination limits. No behavioral contradictions. A small omission is lack of mention of rate limits or data source freshness, but not required given 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 concise: three sentences covering purpose, example, usage guidance, and return format. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy or unnecessary detail. Front-loaded with the core functionality.

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's complexity (search with pagination, response format options, disambiguation need), the description covers the key points. It references sibling tools and explains how to confirm identity. The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to describe return values. A minor gap is the lack of mention of error handling or what happens if no results found, but these are not critical for a search tool.

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 describes all parameters (query, limit, offset, api_key, response_format) with descriptions, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the disambiguation use case (why to use get_author) and the pagination pattern. It also clarifies that the output is Markdown by default, which is a behavioral note not in 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: 'Search for academic authors by name.' It provides a concrete example ('query='Yoshua Bengio'') and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by recommending semantic_scholar_get_author for identity confirmation and semantic_scholar_paper_authors for listing authors of a specific paper.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool and when to use alternatives: 'confirm identity with semantic_scholar_get_author' and 'to list the authors of a specific paper use semantic_scholar_paper_authors instead.' It also explains pagination details ('offset/limit (max 100 per call, default 10)') and how to fetch next pages.

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