ctvnews_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only profile retrieval and discloses the exact payload fields returned, which goes beyond simply restating the tool's name. It does not describe failure behavior for invalid or non-canonical URLs, but for a simple get-by-URL read operation, the provided transparency is strong.

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 sentences with no redundant filler: the tool's purpose is stated first, and the return contract is compactly listed. Every clause carries information relevant to calling the tool correctly.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: input semantics and a full list of returned fields. The only omission is edge-case handling, which is minor for a get-profile utility.

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 documents the sole parameter as a canonical CTV News author URL with 100% description coverage. The description mainly restates that notion without adding format examples, validation rules, or additional constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific, non-generic verb-resource pair ('Get a CTV News author profile') and enumerates the returned content: name, role, biography, photo, public contact address, and recent stories. It is unambiguous against siblings like ctvnews_article or ctvnews_headlines because the scope is explicitly the author byline profile.

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 clearly states the required input ('from a canonical author URL') and implies the natural use case of retrieving profile data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the author-scoped context is clear enough to route an agent away from article, headline, or section tools.

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