nationalpost_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields and the conditional bio ('when the author has one') and notes stories are limited to the first page. However, it does not state read-only nature, error behavior for nonexistent authors, or any authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists return fields. It is efficiently structured with no redundant text, though it could be slightly more compact by merging sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, which it does. However, it omits key contextual details: it does not state that at least one of url/slug is required, nor the behavior when both are provided, nor error handling. These gaps make it incomplete for a tool with no required parameters.

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 descriptions for both url and slug (100% coverage), and the tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond restating the purpose. It does not clarify that at least one parameter is required or how to choose between them, but schema descriptions already cover the basics.

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 National Post author profile' and enumerates the specific data returned (name, bio, total story count, latest stories). It is unambiguous about the resource (author profile) and distinguishes it from sibling article/headline tools by name and scope.

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 for author profiles but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., nationalpost_article). It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so an agent must infer context from the tool name and description.

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