abcnews_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well: it discloses not only the positive return fields but also the notable absence of recent articles, the robots.txt constraint behind that absence, and that profile data is returned only 'when the page carries' it. This gives an agent an accurate model of what the call can and cannot do.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and return payload, then contains one caveat sentence explaining the missing article list. The caveat is somewhat verbose, but its robots.txt context is valuable and not merely 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines the input, the returned fields, and a notable scope boundary. It could be stronger with an example canonical URL or a note on error behavior, but nothing essential for a correct basic call 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?

The single url parameter already has 100% schema description coverage ('Canonical ABC News author URL'), and the description only restates that same canonical-URL concept without adding format details, examples, or validation guidance. The schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get an ABC News author profile') and enumerates the returned fields: name, job title/biography, and social links. It also explicitly scopes out recent articles, which differentiates it from article endpoints and other news-author tools.

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?

The description clearly conveys when to use it: to fetch an author profile from a canonical author URL. It also gives a when-not-to-use signal by stating that recent article lists are not included and why, though it does not name a specific alternative endpoint to switch to for that need.

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