get_author_neighbors

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'one ranked page' to indicate pagination and 'neighboring/similar' to clarify the concept, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as ranking criteria or error handling.

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, well-structured sentence with the action verb first and no unnecessary words. It is concise, front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema and safety annotations, the description lacks details on what qualifies as a 'neighbor' or how ranking works. It also does not explain the required input parameter, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent to infer.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (author_id_or_url, limit, offset). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, adding no extra 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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('neighboring/similar Lacuna authors'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_author_papers or get_author_context. The phrase 'one ranked page' also signals pagination, making the purpose specific and clear.

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 implies usage for retrieving similar authors but does not explicitly state when to use it or contrast with alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so guidance is limited to the implied context.

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