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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the tool returns both a profile and recent articles, and that shared newsroom bylines lack individual biographies. It stops short of describing coverage depth or result limits, but that is minor given the output schema exists.

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 sentences, no filler. The capability statement leads, the byline limitation follows, and the sibling routing is packed into the closing clause.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value documentation is unnecessary. With the input source, the known limitation, and explicit sibling routing all present, nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, whose schema text already specifies the canonical www.france24.com/en/author/<slug>/ form. The description restates "canonical author-profile url" without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so 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?

Specific verb ("Fetch") plus resource ("France 24 byline profile and recent articles") and the exact input it consumes (a canonical author-profile url). It explicitly distinguishes itself from france24_headlines and france24_article, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names both alternatives with their selecting conditions: france24_headlines "to discover stories" and france24_article "for one story." It also states a when-not case — the shared FRANCE 24 newsroom byline has no individual biography — which prevents a futile call.

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