euronews_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 behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the nature of the operation ('Get', 'Returns') and constrains input to 'canonical profile URL,' which is useful. However, it does not mention any potential error behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it). It adds some context beyond the schema but leaves gaps.

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 filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get a Euronews author profile') and then provides the key detail about output and input. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential input and output. However, it does not describe the structure of 'byline metadata' or the extent of 'recent articles,' and it omits error behavior or response format details. This is adequate but not complete for an agent that must rely solely on the description without schema or annotation support.

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 documents the only parameter (`url` as 'Canonical Euronews author profile URL') with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond repeating the canonical URL requirement. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate further.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('Euronews author profile') and the expected output ('byline metadata and recent articles'). This distinguishes it from sibling author tools by naming the source (Euronews) and the specific data returned. The phrase 'from a canonical profile URL' also clarifies the input, making the purpose fully explicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other *_author tools for different outlets. It does not state conditions for use or exclusions. The only implicit signal is the tool name itself, which is not sufficient per the dimension's requirement for explicit usage guidance.

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