apnews_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden)Skip? Actually, it says: 'Get an AP News author profile. Returns...' – that's the purpose. Then it adds operational details about using a browser fleet when HTTP transport fails, explicitly stating it does not bypass auth, and the credit cost difference. This goes beyond what the schema or name would convey, giving the agent insight into fallback behavior and cost implications.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by useful operational context (browser fallback, cost) without bloat. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers what the tool returns (byline metadata, biography, recent articles), the required input (canonical URL), and execution/cost behavior. There is no output schema, so the high-level description of return values is helpful. Missing details like example URL formats or error conditions are minor for a single-parameter tool.

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% (the single 'url' parameter is described as 'Canonical AP News author URL'). The tool description repeats 'from a canonical author URL' but adds no additional semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema adequately documents the parameter.

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?

Starts with a clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('AP News author profile'), and enumerates the output (byline metadata, biography, recent articles). The name distinguishes it from apnews_headlines, apnews_news, and similar author tools across other publications, while the description reinforces that it is AP News-specific.

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?

Clear context is provided: this tool is for author profiles and requires a canonical author URL. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer it over other apnews tools, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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