macrumors_author

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it returns public profile data, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not mention whether any authentication is needed, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is accurate but minimal; it does not explicitly say it's read-only, but 'Returns' suggests that. No contradiction with annotations since 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 concise, two sentences, and states the main purpose and output. It front-loads the primary function. However, it could be more explicit about the alternative between URL and slug to aid selection, though that is covered in the schema. Overall, it's clean with no wasted words.

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 retrieval tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't mention that either parameter is optional, or that both can be provided but one suffices. It doesn't mention the return format or pagination of articles, but no output schema exists, so the description should provide more detail on what 'recent articles' means or how they are structured. This is a gap for full completeness.

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 already describes both parameters with clear examples: url is a canonical URL and slug is a string. The description doesn't add new meaning beyond what's in the schema, as schema coverage is 100%. It just summarizes that you provide either a URL or slug, which is already explicit. 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 gets a MacRumors author profile and lists the returned content: name, bio, avatar, and recent articles. It is specific enough about the resource and purpose, but does not contrast with sibling author tools like macrumors_author vs ninetofivemac_author, though the site name is embedded in the tool name making differentiation clear.

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 explains that you need a MacRumors author profile and implies you can use either a URL or a slug, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over other author tools or news tools like macrumors_article or macrumors_headlines. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternative routes are given.

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