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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds a useful behavioral fact: this call is the source of profile_id for downstream tools, which matters for sequencing. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what an empty result means, so it stays at an adequate level rather than a rich one.

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?

It consists of two compact sentences: the first lists the fields returned, and the second states the routing rule up front with no wasted words. The entry-point instruction comes second, but nothing is buried or repeated.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with the safety hints covered by annotations, the description says enough to call it correctly: it states the fields returned and the role in the workflow. It could note that results are limited by 'limit' and how to enumerate the rest, but that is a minor gap.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, 'limit', and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already covers the default of 50 and the meaning of the value. The description adds no further detail about the parameter's effect or maximum value, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names the resource and the exact scope: authors tracked by the key owner, plus the fields returned (nick, platform, subscribers, niche, corpus status). It is clearly a listing tool, though the verb is implicit in a noun phrase rather than stated. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like author_stats or author_dossier_get because it establishes the entry point that supplies profile_id.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'always start here', with the reason that profile_id from this output is required by all other author tools. What is missing is guidance on when NOT to use it, or on what to do when the list is large or empty.

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