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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-access profile are covered. The description adds that the page is 'public' and enumerates panels and recent article items, but those return contents are already described by the output schema. It does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or canonical-URL requirements beyond what the schema provides, so it adds only limited behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by sibling routing. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is a simple one-parameter read operation; annotations cover readOnly and openWorld behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The description states what is fetched and when to use alternatives, leaving no material gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the single parameter's description ('Canonical NYT author URL') is fully specified in the schema. The description restates 'from canonical author `url`' without adding syntax, format, or acquisition guidance beyond structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('New York Times contributor's public byline page') with enumerated contents (name, tagline, About/Contact panels, recent article items). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming nyt_article, nyt_headlines, and nyt_sections. An agent can identify exactly what this tool returns without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: 'Use nyt_article for one story, nyt_headlines for section stories, or nyt_sections to discover sections.' The purpose sentence makes the when-to-use condition clear, and the contrast with three siblings gives strong usage guidance.

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