Search Authors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only conveys the tool's purpose. It does not disclose pagination, matching behavior, result format, or any operational side effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is more under-specified than appropriately concise. It communicates the basic purpose yet lacks the context that would make the brevity effective.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a need to differentiate from sibling author tools, this one-phrase description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or when it should be preferred over related tools.

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 100% for all three parameters (query, limit, offset), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no parameter-level value, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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 clear verb+resource ('search academic authors'), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_papers and get_author. However, it lacks explicit scope details such as searching by name or result behavior, so it stops short of the most precise standard.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_author or get_author_papers. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cue to aid selection.

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