cnet_author

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that it returns a public profile and one page of recent articles, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose edge-case behaviors (invalid slug, missing author, pagination limits) or explicitly confirm read-only behavior (though 'Get' implies it). With no annotation safety net, this moderate gap justifies a 3.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a CNET author profile') and then efficiently lists the returned data. There is no fluff, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail – every word 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?

Given three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It specifies the response contents and even hints at pagination. The only gap is that it doesn't clarify the alternative relationship between url and slug or the behavior when no parameters are supplied (since none are required), though the schema already covers these details. This minor omission keeps it from a 5.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – each parameter (url, page, slug) already has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description adds minimal parameter-level value, only linking 'one page' to the page parameter. Per the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, which the description does not exceed.

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 clear verb+resource pair: 'Get a CNET author profile', and enumerates the specific return fields (name, role, biography, areas of expertise, social links, and one page of recent articles). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from other CNET tools like cnet_article or cnet_headlines, which are clearly not author-profile lookups.

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 when to use the tool: when you need a CNET author's profile and recent articles. It provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., search tools). The context about the return payload helps an agent infer applicability, but the absence of exclusions or alternative references keeps it at the implied-usage level.

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