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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses caching lifetime, the fact that reports are shared globally, that no generation is possible, that expired reports return status only with no body, and that quoted third-party reel content arrives in untrusted_content. It also pre-empts a likely confusion by explicitly separating expires_at (cache lifetime) from is_stale (author posted after assembly). This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then progressively narrower operational detail (cost/caching, staleness flags, expired behavior, untrusted content), and every sentence carries information the agent needs. It is dense — heavy capitalization for emphasis and a long final sentence — but no sentence is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the returned shape, and it does: status plus body, the expires_at / is_stale / expired fields, the empty-body case, and the untrusted_content wrapper. For a single-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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% and the single parameter profile_id is already documented as coming from list_authors, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no further constraint or format detail about the identifier, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not value-adding.

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 first sentence names the resource (author report) and enumerates the states it can be returned in (ready, being computed, absent), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. What it does not do is distinguish itself from close siblings such as author_dossier_get or author_stats, so an agent must still infer which of the three author-oriented tools fits.

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 states clear usage context: the read is free, the report is shared across all users and cached for 30 days, and a fresh report cannot be built through MCP — only an existing one can be fetched. That effectively tells the agent when this tool is viable. It stops short of naming an alternative when no ready report exists, and never contrasts itself with sibling author tools.

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