irishtimes_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 mentions the input is a 'canonical author URL' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, potential error conditions, or output format details. The list of returned fields is useful, but key behavioral traits are absent.

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 lists the primary purpose and the fields returned. It is concise and front-loads the core function, though the enumeration of fields could be considered slightly verbose.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks details on error handling or pagination of recent articles, but these are not critical for a basic get-profile operation.

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% for the single 'url' parameter, and the description reinforces the 'canonical' qualifier already present in the schema. However, it does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., URL format expectations, examples, or handling of invalid URLs). Baseline of 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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Irish Times author profile'), and enumerates the returned fields (name, job title, biography, headshot, contact details, recent articles). It is unambiguous about the tool's function, though it does not differentiate from sibling author tools (e.g., nzherald_author, apnews_author) beyond the publication name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, such as when to use irishtimes_article or other author tools, nor does it describe prerequisites like needing a canonical URL. An agent must infer the context.

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