Search CS Authors

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

Annotations already declare safety and idempotency. Description adds useful context: database size, returned fields, licensing (CC0), which supplements 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 sentences covering purpose, scope, returns, and use cases. Front-loaded with key action and resource, no unnecessary 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?

Simple tool with output schema present, description covers all essentials: action, target, returns, use cases. Fully adequate given complexity.

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% with well-described parameters. Description does not add extra parameter details, meeting baseline expectations for high 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 clearly states the tool searches computer science authors on DBLP, specifies scope (3M+), and lists returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling 'dblp.cs.search' (likely publications) by focusing on authors.

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?

Explicitly mentions use cases: 'finding researchers, checking publication records, discovering collaborators'. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but context with sibling tools makes it clear.

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