deadline_author

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data returned (fields and one page of articles), which is useful, but it doesn't mention any behavioral traits like side effects (likely read-only), errors, pagination limits beyond the page parameter, or specifics about the response structure. It's a minimal but adequate disclosure for a simple read operation.

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 filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second specifies the return contents. Every word earns its place; it's concise and well-organized.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, this description is nearly complete. It covers the resource, the type of data returned, and the page parameter's effect. It lacks guidance on error handling or output format, but those are not critical for a simple profile fetch. It is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents the URL format and page default. The description adds a slight semantic hint with 'one page of their recent articles' linking to the page parameter, but it doesn't elaborate on parameter behavior or edge cases. It stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Deadline author profile.' It enumerates the fields returned (name, job title, headshot, biography, social/contact links, recent articles), clearly distinguishing it from article tools like deadline_article and other author tools for different sites. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description—it fetches author profiles—but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over sibling tools or when not to use it. It doesn't mention alternatives such as deadline_article for article content or when to prefer other author tools. While the context is clear, it lacks explicit exclusions or selection criteria.

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