foreignpolicy_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 clearly states the return content (name, bio, recent articles) and importantly discloses the limitation: the endpoint does not follow client-side controls, so it returns only the initial recent-article list, not the full history. This transparency about scope is valuable and implies a read-only operation. It does not mention any side effects or auth requirements, but for a read-only GET-like endpoint this is adequate.

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 compact—two sentences—with the core purpose stated first and a necessary limitation second. There is no redundancy or filler. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logically front-loaded.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (no output schema, two optional params). The description explains the key output (name, bio, recent articles) and the important limitation of not following client-side controls, which prevents misinterpretation about article coverage. It does not discuss parameter selection, error conditions, or pagination, but these are largely covered by the schema or are not critical for a simple read operation. Overall, sufficient for an agent to call it 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 input schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters: 'url' explains it is a canonical URL alternative to slug, and 'slug' gives an example. Since the schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond that—it mentions neither parameter explicitly—so it does not surpass the baseline.

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 ('Foreign Policy author profile') and clearly enumerates what is returned: name, bio, and recent articles. It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from siblings like foreignpolicy_article or foreignpolicy_headlines by focusing specifically on the author profile.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the endpoint does not follow client-side controls, but this is a limitation, not usage direction. There is no statement like 'use this when you need an author profile' or 'for full article lists, use foreignpolicy_article'. An agent is left to infer usage context.

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