dailymail_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns a profile with specific fields and 'one page' of articles, which is helpful. However, it does not mention read-only nature, pagination beyond one page, error conditions, or any authentication requirements. The description adds some context but lacks depth expected for a read tool without annotations.

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 concise sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second enumerates the returned fields. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it identifies the resource, the required input (URL), and the content of the response. It lacks details on pagination mechanics or error handling, but given the simplicity and presence of parameter descriptions in the schema, it is adequate. It does not explicitly say how to access additional pages beyond the one returned, but that is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'url' and 'page' having descriptions. The description does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema—it only reinforces the 'one page' concept. Since the schema already documents both parameters, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds minimal extra value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Daily Mail author profile'), and lists the returned content (name, job title, bio, social accounts, and one page of recent articles). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling author tools by focusing on the Daily Mail domain, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for retrieving Daily Mail author profiles, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dailymail_article for articles, or other author tools). There are no exclusions or conditions provided, leaving the selection largely to the tool's name and general context.

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