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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context by listing the specific data fields (role, beats, bio, etc.) and indicating that it returns an id for further use. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful detail about the tool's output semantics.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful. The first defines the action and outputs, the second states the use case, and the third suggests a follow-up action. No redundant wording, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise yet complete.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return format. It covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what info it returns, when to use it, and how to chain it with another tool. Given its read-only nature and clear schema, no gaps are evident.

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% — all four parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds context beyond the schema by clarifying that the id is returned by trendaz_article_get, and by giving examples of name and alias formats. This slightly elevates it above the baseline of 3 for full schema 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 starts with a specific verb+resource ('Look up a Trend News Agency journalist') and enumerates the exact data returned (role, beats, biography, expertise, conflicts of interest, staff status). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like trendaz_news_list (which lists articles) and trendaz_article_get (which fetches a single article) by focusing on the author profile.

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 states when to use: 'when a citation needs to establish who reported something and what standing they have on the subject.' It also gives a concrete workflow recommendation: 'Combine with trendaz_news_list using the returned id to see what else they have written.' This provides clear context and directs the agent to a complementary tool.

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