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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds what data is returned but does not address failure/not-found behavior or any operational constraints, so the added behavioral value is limited.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first states the action and data scope, the second states the intended use cases. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The return shape is covered by the output schema, and there is no multi-step complexity requiring additional context.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter with type and concrete examples ('Marcus Reid', 'marcus-reid'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema already carries the meaning; baseline 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?

Description names a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource: biography, credentials, expertise areas, and recent articles for a Kolmo Construction blog author. It is clearly an author-focused lookup and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_blog_post or search_content.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: to answer 'who wrote this?' or to add author context to blog content. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the higher bar of explicit exclusions.

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