arstechnica_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully shoulders the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool uses a production browser fleet when encountering bot-verification, and explicitly states it does not bypass authentication or access controls. This is beyond typical descriptions and provides important operational context.

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 three sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then details the output, and finally provides the behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 author-profile fetch with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: the input (canonical URL), the output (metadata, bio, articles), and special behavior (browser fleet, no auth bypass). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 input schema already documents the single 'url' parameter as 'Canonical Ars Technica contributor URL' with 100% coverage. The description repeats this phrase but adds no additional format, example, or syntactic guidance. The description adds marginal value over the schema, so a 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 clearly states the tool fetches an Ars Technica contributor profile and enumerates the exact data returned (byline metadata, biography, recent articles). It distinguishes itself from article/news tools by specifying the resource type and source, and from other publisher author tools by naming Ars Technica explicitly.

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 implies usage context by specifying it works from a canonical author URL and names the publisher. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like arstechnica_article or other publisher author tools, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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