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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail, that the response bundles the author's most recent articles alongside the profile, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or how many articles are returned.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and the accepted input forms trailing; no redundant or filler language.

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 read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers the resource, the payload contents, and both accepted input forms. The only minor gap is not stating that at least one of the two optional parameters must be supplied.

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 both parameters are already documented with examples (darren-major-1.4462710). The description restates that either a slug or a canonical URL works but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (one CBC journalist's public profile) and enumerates what the profile contains, including recent articles. An agent can immediately distinguish it from cbc_article, cbc_headlines, cbc_news and cbc_sections.

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?

Usage is implied: use it when you need a CBC author's profile or their recent output, and the inputs must be an author slug or a canonical cbc.ca/author/<slug> URL. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to sibling tools, but the use case is unambiguous.

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