fastcompany_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the bio may be omitted if the bot-verification challenge cannot be cleared, and that a production browser fleet is used when ordinary HTTP fails. It also explicitly states it does not bypass auth or access controls. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what annotations would provide.

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 reasonably concise, with key information front-loaded (what it returns) and important caveats (bio omission, browser fleet) placed after. It's a bit lengthy but each sentence adds value. Slightly above average due to clear structure.

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 complexity (data from multiple sources, potential bot challenge), the description covers essential points: what is returned, source of data, handling of challenges, and auth non-bypass. There's no output schema, so it could describe the response structure, but the description is sufficient for a simple profile fetch. Slightly incomplete on response format but not critical.

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% (the url parameter is described as 'Canonical Fast Company contributor URL'). The description adds the nuance that the URL must be canonical, which is slightly more specific, but it doesn't elaborate on URL format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already covers the parameter.

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'), a clear resource ('Fast Company contributor profile'), and the data returned (name, biography, recent articles). It also specifies the canonical contributor URL, which differentiates from siblings like fastcompany_article (article content) and fastcompany_headlines (headlines).

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 you need a contributor profile, pass the canonical URL) and clarifies that recent articles and name come from the RSS feed while bio comes from the profile page. It does not explicitly exclaim when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list includes many other fastcompany tools, and the resource is clear.

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