inquirer_author

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a public archive page with name and recent articles, and adds the per-subdomain behavior (that different sections require separate calls). It doesn't detail error handling or pagination beyond the schema, but the key behaviors are transparent. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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, using three sentences to convey purpose, return content, and a key behavioral nuance. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides the necessary detail without extraneous text. Every sentence contributes value.

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 tool with two parameters, complete schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states what is returned (name and recent articles) and the per-subdomain caveat. It doesn't describe output structure or error cases, but given the simplicity and schema coverage, these are not critical gaps.

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% (both url and page have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that url is a canonical byline URL but doesn't add new information beyond the schema. The page parameter is fully described in the schema, so the description adds no extra semantics. It doesn't compensate for any gaps, but none exist.

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: to retrieve a Philippine Daily Inquirer author profile, including the contributor's name and recent articles. It specifies the resource (byline archive page) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like inquirer_headlines or inquirer_article by focusing on author-specific data. The per-subdomain nuance adds clarity on scope.

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 when an author profile is needed, and explicitly notes that byline pages are per-subdomain, meaning repeated calls are necessary for different sections. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for headlines or articles), though the purpose is clear enough. The guidance is present but could be more explicit about alternatives.

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