nationafrica_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 well by explaining the important limitation: only 'a handful' of latest stories are returned because 'the site loads the full list separately and it is not read.' This tells the agent what not to expect. It does not cover error behavior, parameter-precedence behavior, or explicit read-only status, but 'public profile' and the listed fields give a reasonable picture.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return contents and a parenthetical caveat. It is efficient and every clause adds value, though there is slight redundancy ('Nation Africa author' appears twice) and the parenthetical is a bit long. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key return fields and the most important behavioral limitation (the full story list is not read). The main gaps are that both parameters are marked optional in the schema while the description never states that at least one of url/slug must be supplied, and there is no mention of not-found or error behavior. Still, an agent can likely invoke it correctly based on this definition.

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%: both url and slug have meaningful descriptions, including an example slug. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not explain whether one parameter should be preferred over the other or whether providing both is allowed, but the schema already defines each parameter adequately.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Nation Africa author profile.' It then enumerates the returned contents (name, bio, portrait, latest stories from the profile page), making the tool's scope concrete. The focus on an author profile clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as nationafrica_article, nationafrica_headlines, and nationafrica_news, even without naming them.

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 this tool is for retrieving author profile data, and the context of Nation Africa news tools makes the intended use reasonably clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions (e.g., 'for full story lists, use nationafrica_article'). There is no routing guidance like the get_calls vs search_calls_extensive example.

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