aljazeera_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns public profile data (name, job title, bio when available) and one page of recent articles, which conveys a read-only, paginated behavior. It does not cover error cases or identifier-priority details, but for a simple public profile fetch this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences and mostly efficient, front-loading the core action and elaborating on the return payload and input identifiers. There is minor redundancy between 'Get an Al Jazeera author's profile and recent articles' and the following 'Returns...' sentence, but no 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description appropriately names the returned fields (name, job title, bio) and indicates pagination via 'one page of recent articles.' It could be more explicit that slug or url is required, but the phrasing 'identified by an author slug or a canonical author URL' makes that sufficiently clear.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters: slug, url, and page. The description adds little beyond restating that the author is identified by slug or canonical URL, which maps directly to two of the schema fields. This meets the baseline but does not substantially enhance parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource: an Al Jazeera author's profile and recent articles. It clearly distinguishes this tool from article-level or headline-level tools like aljazeera_article and aljazeera_headlines by scoping it to authors.

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 states the tool is for retrieving an Al Jazeera author by slug or canonical URL, which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can route to this tool without ambiguity.

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