gamesradar_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 state that the tool returns a public profile and one page of articles, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination behavior beyond that single page, error cases, or any access requirements. This is adequate for a simple read operation but not richly transparent.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the return fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema 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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key return fields and the scope (one author, one page). It does not explain how to fetch additional pages beyond the schema's page parameter, and it doesn't mention error behavior, but the combination of description and fully documented schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely mentions 'one page' which aligns with the page parameter. The schema itself documents url, page, and slug with clear descriptions.

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 a GamesRadar+ author profile') and enumerates the exact return contents: name, job title, biography, social links, and a page of recent articles. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gamesradar_article or gamesradar_headlines, which target different resources.

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 context by stating it returns an author profile, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. An agent can infer the use case from the name and content, but there is no direct guidance such as 'for articles use gamesradar_article instead'.

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