foreignaffairs_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful behavioral note that the page is not paginated and shows a fixed recent-article list, which helps set expectations. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or error handling, so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 exceptionally concise, with three short sentences that front-load the core purpose, then specify the returned content, and finally add a relevant behavioral note. No word is wasted, and the structure guides the reader from action to details.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and a key behavioral quirk. It does not explicitly state that either url or slug must be provided, nor does it mention any limits on the recent-article list, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (url and slug), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, not even clarifying that at least one is needed or how to choose between them. It relies entirely on the schema, which is acceptable given the high 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a Foreign Affairs author profile and specifies the exact contents (name, bio, recent articles). The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'author profile' makes the purpose unambiguous, and the mention of 'one contributor' distinguishes it from tools that might return multiple authors.

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 (to get an author profile) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. With many sibling author tools, some explicit guidance on when to choose this one would be helpful, but the context is clear enough for a basic understanding.

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