get_institution_authors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that results are one page at a time, ordered by paper count, and how pagination works via output fields. This is sufficient transparency for a read-only tool.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, ordering, and pagination instructions. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (3 params, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the essential points: what it fetches, ordering, and pagination. It could add a note on what institution_key_or_url refers to, but the parameter name and sibling tools provide enough context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does provide pagination-related context but does not explicitly explain the limit/offset parameters or the form of institution_key_or_url. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, and the output-pagination fields indirectly imply usage, but the description could be more explicit.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one page of authors affiliated with a Lacuna institution'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_institution_context or get_author_papers. The scope ('one page') and ordering ('by paper count') are also stated.

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 clear in-tool guidance: it tells the user how to page through results using authors_total, authors_returned, authors_offset, and authors_truncated. It does not explicitly mention alternatives/exclusions, but given no sibling tool serves the same purpose, the context is clear enough.

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