dailycaller_author

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose what the tool returns (byline metadata, job title, biography, contact links, newest articles), which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose potential failure modes, whether the URL must be exact/canonical, rate limits, or what happens if the author doesn't exist. The description is honest but not deeply transparent about 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Get a The Daily Caller author profile') and then lists the returned data. It's concise and every phrase adds information. Minor redundancy: 'Returns a The Daily Caller author's byline metadata' repeats the source name, but overall it's efficient.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main inputs and outputs. It tells the agent what data will be returned, which is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it doesn't specify the expected URL format (e.g., full URL vs. path), error behavior, or how the 'newest articles' are ordered. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not complete.

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%: the only parameter 'url' is described as 'Canonical The Daily Caller author URL'. The description adds the context that the URL should be canonical and that it's for an author profile, but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 gets a The Daily Caller author profile and enumerates the returned content: byline metadata, job title, biography, contact links, and newest articles. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('author profile'), which distinguishes it from article/news tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling author tools like nzherald_author or nydailynews_author, though the source name in the tool name and description provides some differentiation.

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 usage: provide a canonical author URL to get profile data. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the URL. The context signal of sibling tools shows many author tools, but the description doesn't guide selection among them. The 'canonical author URL' requirement is a useful usage hint, but no explicit when-to-use guidance is given.

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