List the works a person is credited with

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses row ordering by 'address' not chronological, absence of a total count, that form codes carry no labels, and that only one catalogue link is reported. It also explains the open-world caveat that missing works do not mean the person didn't write them. This is thorough and adds substantial context.

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 long but front-loaded with a clear purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence provides valuable caveats and behavioral details without repetition. While verbose, it earns its length through necessary nuance.

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?

Even with an output schema and annotations, the description explains row fields, ordering, open-world behavior, form code nuances, and the meaning of missing works. It leaves no major ambiguity about what the tool returns or its limitations, making it highly complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema already describes author_id adequately; the description merely restates it. With only 33% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for undocumented page/limit parameters, offering no pagination guidance or parameter-specific details. The added value is minimal.

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?

Clearly states it lists works a person is credited with, using a specific identifier from search_authors. Explicitly labeled as 'the tool for what did this person write' and distinguished from a bibliography. This separates it from sibling tools like list_editions and get_work.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: after search_authors, for finding what a person wrote. Mentions it is not a bibliography and cautions about open-world limitations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, relying instead on implied context.

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