audible_author_charts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the tool returns only a page of ranked authors with limited fields and that author detail is outside the credential-free surface, which is useful context. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond page parameter, but the schema covers that. It is transparent about the scoped nature of the 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?

The description is concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add scoping details. No filler or repetition; 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?

Given the simple structure (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It explains what data is returned and the limitation of the public surface. Minor gap: it does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but these are not critical for this simple 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?

The schema already documents the 'page' parameter with a clear description (1-based result page, default 1). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond that, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional context is needed.

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 Audible's top-author chart, specifies it returns one page, and distinguishes it from the sibling audible_charts by focusing on authors specifically. It also names the exact data fields exposed (rank, author identity, image metadata, canonical author URI), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for retrieving author charts and notes the limits of the public surface (no author detail), which helps agents decide when to use this vs. other tools like audible_product or audible_search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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