birminghammail_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that this is a public profile (implying no auth) and enumerates exactly what is returned, including the scoping to one page of recent articles. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but for a read-style profile fetch the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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?

Two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the return fields in the second. Minor redundancy (Birmingham Mail author appears twice) keeps it from a 5, but there is 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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description lists the return fields and mentions the one-page article list, which an agent needs to interpret results. It does not explain which of the optional params should be supplied (url vs slug), but the schema covers that, so the description is adequately complete.

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 all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics; 'one page of their recent articles' reinforces the page parameter but provides no additional format or constraint beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a Birmingham Mail author profile') and lists the concrete return fields (name, job title, bio, email, X/Twitter handle, one page of recent articles). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as birminghammail_article and birminghammail_headlines, which target different content types.

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—call this when you need a Birmingham Mail author profile—but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no explicit guidance distinguishing it from the many other {source}_author tools, though the source is clear from the name.

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