get_author_papers

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that results are paginated ('one page') and ordered newest-to-oldest, which is not captured in 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 unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, pagination scope, and ordering.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and one behavioral detail, but it lacks explicit usage guidelines and parameter explanations. The presence of an output schema and clear annotations partially offsets these gaps, making it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive for a tool with 3 parameters and several siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining the parameters. It only implies pagination ('one page') without naming limit/offset or explaining their semantics, and it does not clarify the format or valid values for author_id_or_url beyond its name.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an author's papers', with pagination ('one page') and ordering ('newest to oldest'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_paper (single paper) and get_direction_papers (papers for a direction).

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 that the tool is for retrieving an author's papers, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_author_directions or get_direction_papers. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools.

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