cnbc_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the return fields, which is helpful, but it does not mention error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the author is not found. It also does not clarify the return structure beyond listing fields. It is transparent about the core function but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the resource and return fields, then explains the input options. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and direct.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and return fields, but it has gaps: the schema lists both parameters as optional (required: []), yet the description implies at least one is needed ('Provide either...'). This ambiguity could lead an agent to call with no parameters. It also does not specify what happens if both are provided or if they conflict, nor does it mention error behavior. Given there is no output schema, the description should be more explicit about required inputs and edge cases.

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 provides descriptions for both url and slug (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the slug is the last path segment of the bio page URL, which helps an agent construct it correctly. It also clarifies that either slug or URL is acceptable. This adds value beyond the schema, so a 4 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 clearly states it returns a CNBC author profile with a specific list of fields (name, job title, biography, social links, recent articles). It identifies the resource as 'CNBC author profile', which distinguishes it from sibling author tools for other sites. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is for CNBC authors only, but the leading 'CNBC' makes that clear. Slight deduction for not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 other author tools or alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions for use. It only explains how to provide the input (slug or URL) but not when this tool is the right choice.

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