get_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the surface action. It does not mention not-found/error behavior, that include_inlines requires admin privileges (that constraint lives only in the schema), permission requirements, or performance implications of expanding related data.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the core action and ID, then qualifying the optional expansions. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse to be richly informative.

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 simple single-record getter with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to invoke it. It is incomplete on error/not-found semantics and the admin privilege requirement for inlines, which are material to calling 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%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The phrase 'optional inline and related data' loosely maps to include_inlines/include_related but adds no format or behavioral detail beyond what the schema says (e.g., the admin requirement is only in 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Author) with the identifying key (by ID), which cleanly separates it from list_author, create_author, or related_author. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'by ID' implies you use it when you already have a specific author identifier, unlike list_author or autocomplete_author. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer related_author/describe_author, and no prerequisites stated.

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