gulfnews_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 transparently states that it returns a public profile and lists the fields, which covers the core behavior. It does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or what happens when the author is not found, but for a simple read operation, the disclosure 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Get a Gulf News author profile') and then lists the expected contents. There is no redundancy or filler; every phrase contributes to understanding.

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 fairly complete. It explicitly lists what the agent can expect in the response (name, job title, bio, recent articles), which is essential since there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination or error scenarios, but these are not critical for the basic use case.

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 both parameters (url, slug) have descriptive comments. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions they are alternatives implicitly through the word 'returns' but does not elaborate on when to use each. Since the schema already covers semantics, the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Get a Gulf News author profile') and enumerates the exact resource contents (name, job title, bio, recent articles). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like gulfnews_article or gulfnews_sections, and among the many author tools for other publishers, the Gulf News qualifier is explicit.

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: it is for retrieving author profiles, which is obvious from the name and wording. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if you need articles, use gulfnews_article), nor does it provide guidance on choosing between the url and slug parameters. The intent is clear but not explicitly contrasted.

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