List Institution Authors

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered by paper count, and it names the specific response fields used for paging.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, opening with the core action and following with ordering and pagination notes. Each sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be restated. However, for a tool with three inputs, it omits the meaning/format of institution_key_or_url and does not tie the limit/offset inputs to the described paging behavior, leaving a moderate gap.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It references output fields (authors_offset, authors_truncated) but never documents the input parameters limit or offset, nor the expected format of institution_key_or_url. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one page of authors affiliated with a Lacuna institution.' It clearly communicates the resource scope (institution-affiliated authors), though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_author_papers or get_institution_context.

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?

It gives implied usage via pagination guidance ('page through the complete list'), which signals this is a paged listing tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or routing to alternatives such as get_institution_context or get_author_papers.

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