metro_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the tool returns a profile with specific fields, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential edge cases like what happens if the URL is invalid, whether the 'most recent articles' are limited in number, or any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get a Metro author profile') and then lists the returned fields. It's concise without being terse, and every phrase 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and return fields. However, it lacks guidance on URL format specifics, error handling, or how the 'most recent articles' are ordered/limited. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, which is described as 'Canonical Metro author URL'. The description adds the context that this URL is for a Metro author profile, but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.

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: 'Get a Metro author profile' and enumerates the returned data fields (name, job title, biography, topic areas, social links, recent articles). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like metro_article and metro_news by focusing on author profiles, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 context by specifying it takes a 'canonical author URL' and returns author-specific data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nzherald_author or other author-profile tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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