dailyrecord_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it returns a public profile and lists fields, implying a read-only operation but never explicitly stating so. It does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple fetch, this is minimal but acceptable; however, it lacks explicit safety disclosure.

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, immediately states the purpose, and lists the output fields efficiently. It is well-structured with no extraneous content, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 author-profile tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It lists the return fields, which is helpful. However, it does not clarify whether both parameters are optional or if one is required, nor does it specify the number of recent articles returned. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already provides descriptive parameter info (url is a canonical URL alternative to slug, slug is an example author slug). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, such as which parameter is preferred or if both can be used together. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not improve on it.

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's function: 'Get a Daily Record author profile.' It specifies the resource (Daily Record author) and the action (get), and lists the specific data returned (name, job title, bio, email, X/Twitter handle, recent articles). This distinguishes it from other author tools by resource, and from article tools by content type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative author tools or other Daily Record tools. It does not explain how to choose between the 'url' and 'slug' parameters, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing selection.

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