businessstandard_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by listing the return categories (byline metadata, biography, social links, recent stories) and frames the operation as a read via 'Get'. But it omits output format, pagination of 'recent stories', and any failure or access constraints, so an agent is left guessing about response structure.

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, no wasted words, with the verb and resource front-loaded. The enumeration of returned data is compact and informative, and 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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential input and high-level return content. It is slightly incomplete on response structure and pagination/limits, but the low complexity prevents any critical gap for invoking the 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?

There is only one parameter, url, and the schema already describes it as 'Canonical Business Standard author URL' (100% coverage). The description reinforces the same phrase, adding no additional format, example, or constraints beyond the schema, so it only meets the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Business Standard author profile'), and enumerates the returned data (byline metadata, biography, social links, recent stories). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like businessstandard_article or businessstandard_sections, which target different content.

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 the use case: you need a 'canonical author profile URL' and want author-specific data. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as businessstandard_article or businessstandard_sections, nor does it provide exclusions. The context is clear but the guidance is not explicit.

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