dailystaruk_author

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently lists the returned fields (name, job title, bio, email, X/Twitter handle) and notes the one-page limitation on recent articles. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable.

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 with no wasteful wording. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists the return fields and the article page limitation concisely. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates well by explicitly listing the fields returned in the author profile and the one-page article limit. The input parameters are fully documented in the schema, so no duplication is needed. Minor edge cases like conflicting url/slug inputs are not covered, but they are not critical for this simple tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (url, page, slug) already described clearly. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies – the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('author profile') for a clearly identified domain ('Daily Star (UK)'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dailystaruk_article by specifying it returns the author's public profile and a page of recent articles, so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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 when an agent needs an author's profile and recent articles, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, though the context alone is sufficient for this straightforward author-lookup tool.

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