cbr_author

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool returns specific data fields, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly declare read-only status, potential errors, rate limits, or required authentication. For a simple GET-like tool this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and return content without redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured, though it could be slightly improved by including usage guidance in a second sentence.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, this description conveys enough context: it explains what the tool does and what data it returns. It omits details like result format or errors, but given the low complexity, these are minor gaps. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly when it has a canonical URL.

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 provides a complete description for the only parameter (url), covering it 100%. The description repeats 'canonical author URL' but adds no further semantic detail (e.g., allowed formats, examples, or constraints). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the work.

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 ('Get') and resource ('CBR author profile'), and enumerates the return contents (byline metadata, biography, social links, recent articles). It distinguishes itself from sibling author tools by the explicit site name 'CBR' and from article tools by clearly scoping to profiles.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cbr_article or other author tools). It implies usage when a canonical author URL is available but never states exclusions or alternative tools for cases like needing full article content instead of a profile.

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