Find authors by name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavioral details: result cap, default limit, total match count via num_found, and pagination behavior. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only search tool the disclosed behavior is sufficient and does not contradict 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 concise sentences contain all essential information: search scope, result cap, default, total count, pagination, and integration with a sibling tool. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 tool is simple with three parameters and no output schema. The description fully compensates for the lack of an output schema by explaining the return shape, count field, pagination parameters, and next-step usage with get_author_info. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining how limit and offset interact with pagination, defining num_found, and showing how the returned key connects to get_author_info. This adds value rather than just restating schema fields.

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 action: 'Search for author information on Open Library.' It clearly identifies the resource (authors) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_author_info and search_books by describing a list-returning search behavior with pagination.

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: it returns a list up to a limit, supports pagination via offset, and explicitly tells the agent to pass a result's key to get_author_info for the full record. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the follow-up instruction provides practical guidance.

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