irishindependent_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 that it returns specific fields and mentions the limitation of returning only the first page of articles. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention authentication requirements, or discuss pagination or error behavior. It covers the data returned but not the operational traits beyond that.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get an Irish Independent author profile') and then efficiently lists the return content. There is no fluff or redundant information; every clause adds 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must convey what the response contains, which it does comprehensively: name, bio, email, social links, headshot, and recent articles. It also notes the pagination limitation (first page of articles). It does not mention response format or error handling, but these are not critical for a simple fetch tool. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to call it 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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single 'url' parameter, describing it as 'Canonical Irish Independent author URL'. The description repeats this in its wording ('from a canonical author URL') without adding new meaning or examples. Since the schema already documents the parameter well, the description adds minimal extra value, matching the baseline of 3.

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 function: retrieving an Irish Independent author profile. It enumerates specific data returned (name, bio, email, social links, headshot, recent articles), which distinguishes it from article, news, and section tools. The verb 'Get' and resource 'author profile' are explicit and 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 the primary use case: fetching an author profile when you have a canonical author URL. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the name and content make its purpose clear. It provides the prerequisite of a canonical URL, which is useful context for when to call it.

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