billboard_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by noting the data source ('sourced from the author's own public RSS feed') and the expected content. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or any limitations, though the verb 'Get' implies a safe fetch. The source detail elevates it slightly, but it stops short of full transparency.

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 a single, dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Get a Billboard author profile') and compresses the output details and data source efficiently. Every word contributes meaning.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the key elements: what it retrieves, from where, and the input type. There is no output schema, but the listed return components (byline, bio, recent articles) give a usable picture. It could mention error cases or canonical URL format, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward profile fetch.

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 has full coverage (100%) for the single 'url' parameter with description 'Canonical Billboard author URL'. The tool description echoes this same phrase, adding no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline, a 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 plus resource: 'Get a Billboard author profile'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like billboard_article and billboard_news by targeting author-specific data (byline metadata, biography, recent articles). The scope is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose and input requirement ('from a canonical author URL'), so an agent knows when to use it. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the tool name and context make the usage obvious, and there are no misleading conditions.

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