Search Researchers by Name or Affiliation

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it operates on 'public ORCID data,' returns matches with key fields, and positions the tool as the entry point for later detailed lookups. No contradiction with 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?

Two tight sentences: the first defines functionality and query syntax, the second defines return shape and the downstream workflow. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema details beyond what is helpful for orientation.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields in detail. It covers the query modes, the result type, and the natural next step after search. The only minor wrinkle is that it references orcid.get_person/orcid.get_works while sibling names are orcid.researcher.profile/orcid.researcher.works, but the intended workflow is still clear.

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 coverage is 100% and the query parameter already explains plain-name and Solr-style queries with examples. The description restates those examples but adds little semantic value beyond the schema; rows and start are also already documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Search the global ORCID registry for researchers by name or affiliation.' It clearly distinguishes this as the search step whose output feeds profile/works lookups, and it names the returned payload (ORCID iD, name, institution).

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 usage context by explaining that the ORCID iD can then be used with downstream tools like orcid.get_person or orcid.get_works. It does not explicitly state 'use this when you lack an ORCID iD' or name the sibling alternatives by their actual names, but the intended workflow is clear.

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