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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so no side-effect disclosure is needed. The description adds the data categories returned but does not address behavior for unknown authors or limits on recent articles; the output schema likely covers return shape.

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 focused sentences; the first front-loads exactly what the tool returns and the second states common use cases. No filler or redundant repetition of schema or annotation details.

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 one fully documented required parameter, safety annotations, an output schema, and a precise use-case statement, nothing needed to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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%; the author parameter already includes type, required status, and examples like 'Marcus Reid' and 'marcus-reid'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but none is needed given the schema's completeness.

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?

States a specific action ('Get') on an explicit resource ('biography, credentials, expertise areas, and recent articles') for a Kolmo Construction blog author. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_blog_post and list_blog_posts, which concern post content rather than 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 frames when to invoke: to answer 'who wrote this?' or add author context to blog content. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the use-case guidance is clear enough to route an agent appropriately.

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