hollywoodreporter_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 states the tool returns a profile and one page of recent articles, which is helpful, but it doesn't disclose potential pagination behavior beyond the 'page' parameter, rate limits, or what happens if the author doesn't exist. The description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 core purpose and then lists the returned data. Every clause earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 profile-fetching tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool returns and the key parameter (url). The only minor gap is not explicitly describing pagination behavior or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and 100% schema coverage, this is adequate.

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 schema already documents both parameters (url and page). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—it mentions 'one page of recent articles' which aligns with the page parameter, but doesn't elaborate on URL format or page semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a Hollywood Reporter author profile' and enumerates the exact data returned (name, job title, headshot, biography, social/contact links, and one page of recent articles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hollywoodreporter_article, hollywoodreporter_headlines, and hollywoodreporter_sections, which serve 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 specifying it returns an author profile and one page of recent articles, and the schema requires a canonical hollywoodreporter.com/author/<slug> URL. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hollywoodreporter_article or other author tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the URL format.

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