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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond the structured fields — that only the first page of the reporter's stories is returned, implying a truncated list rather than a complete archive. It says nothing about what happens when neither identifier is given or how the profile is resolved.

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, front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource first and then lists the payload. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, nothing to trim.

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 the return shape need not be explained, and the annotations cover read-only/open-world behavior. The one real gap is the mutually-optional url/slug pair, which the description never addresses, leaving an agent able to issue a call with no identifier.

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%, with the schema itself explaining the canonical URL format and the slug example (ellen-o-dwyer) and that url is an alternative to slug. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the 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?

The description names a specific resource (one RNZ reporter's public profile) and enumerates its scope — name, role, bio, email, X handle, photo, story count, first page of stories — which cleanly separates it from rnz_article, rnz_headlines and rnz_news. An agent can tell immediately this is the person-level lookup, not a content feed.

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?

There is no when-to-use framing, no mention of the sibling tools (e.g. use rnz_article once you have a story, rnz_headlines for news), and no note that at least one of url/slug must be supplied even though the schema marks both optional. The agent is left to infer the invocation condition entirely.

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