foxnews_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 clearly states this is a read-only retrieval of a public bio page and enumerates the returned fields. However, it does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., what happens if neither slug nor URL is provided), error handling, or any limitations, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, specifies the return content, and then immediately gives the two invocation options with the URL format. Every sentence carries necessary information, making it compact and scannable.

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 lookup tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the returned data (name, biography, recent articles) and explains both input alternatives. It does not specify what occurs if both parameters are omitted or how conflicts between them are resolved, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already define both `slug` and `url` clearly, including an example slug. The description adds little beyond restating that either can be used; the additional context (URL template, 'as an alternative') is mostly already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Get Fox News author profile,' and goes on to specify the exact content returned: name, biography, and recent articles. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like foxnews_article or foxnews_headlines, and the resource is unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool by stating it retrieves an author profile, and it explains the two accepted input forms. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., foxnews_article for articles, foxnews_search for discovery) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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