livescience_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 does disclose a non-obvious pagination behavior ("one page of their recent articles") and indicates the profile is public, which implies no auth is needed. However, it does not address error behavior, rate limits, or the outcome of invalid slugs/URLs, leaving notable gaps.

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 two concise sentences with the core verb-resource pair front-loaded and the return payload listed immediately after. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary restatement of the tool name.

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 read tool with three optional, well-described parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return payload and the key pagination nuance. It omits minor operational details like default page selection or error handling, but an agent has enough information to call the tool 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for url, page, and slug, including the url/slug relationship and the page-overrides-url behavior. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for schema-documented parameters.

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 opens with the verb "Get" plus the specific resource "Live Science author profile" and enumerates the returned fields (name, job title, biography, social links, recent articles). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like livescience_headlines, livescience_news, livescience_sections, and livescience_article, as well as from other publishers' author tools.

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 its use case—retrieving a Live Science author profile—but never explicitly states when to choose it over sibling author or article tools, nor when not to use it. No alternatives or selection criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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