cnn_author

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return content (byline metadata, bio, social accounts, recent articles/videos) which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it can fail (e.g., profile not found), or any rate limits. The description adds some behavioral context beyond the schema but is not rich.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and then the input requirement. It is concise and every sentence earns its place. The only minor issue is that the slug fallback behavior is in the schema rather than the description, but the description itself is well-structured.

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-fetch tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core: what is returned and how to specify the profile. It lacks explicit failure behavior or clarification on which parameter takes precedence if both are provided, but the schema's 100% coverage and the tool's simplicity make this adequate. The absence of an output schema means the description's list of return fields is the main completeness signal, which is present.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (url and slug) with descriptions. The description adds the relationship between the two (either/or) and the canonical URL format, which is helpful but not extensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool returns a CNN profile's byline metadata, bio paragraphs, social accounts, and recent articles/videos. It identifies the resource (CNN profile) and the verb (returns), and the input options (slug or URL) are explicit. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like cnn_article or cnn_headlines, but the resource and return fields make the purpose clear.

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 says to provide either a profile slug or a canonical cnn.com/profiles/<slug> URL, which is direct usage guidance. It doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives like cnn_article or cnn_headlines, but the profile-specific scope is implied by the resource type. The slug fallback behavior is described in the schema, not the description, so the description itself gives clear input guidance but no exclusions.

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