cbssports_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 does add value by listing the returned fields (name, title, headshot, bio, X/Twitter link, recent articles), which is useful context beyond simple 'get profile.' However, it does not address what happens if both parameters are omitted, whether recent articles are paginated, or any other behavioral edge cases.

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 focused sentences with the action front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists the return content. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details; every phrase 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 simple profile-lookup tool, the description covers purpose and return content, but it leaves ambiguity about whether at least one of slug/url is required (both are optional in the schema) and does not explain how 'recent articles' are bounded. With no output schema, these gaps are more significant. An agent calling with no parameters would be unprepared.

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 already describes both `url` and `slug` with 100% coverage, including an example slug value. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that. According to the rubric, when schema_description_coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a CBS Sports writer profile.' Mentioning 'CBS Sports' distinguishes it from the many other author tools in the sibling list (e.g., nzherald_author, apnews_author) and from sibling tools like cbssports_article, cbssports_news, and cbssports_sections. The scope is clear and 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that cbssports_article would be used for article content, nor does it note that a slug or URL must be provided. There is no explicit or implicit routing to an alternative, so an agent gets no help in choosing among the many writer/author tools.

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