ndtv_author

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It mentions the type of data returned (name, role, biography, image, recent stories) but does not mention any limitations, rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. It does not contradict annotations because there are none, but it misses important behavioral context like whether the URL must be canonical or what happens if it's not.

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, single sentence, and front-loads the core action. It lists specific return elements which is useful, but could be slightly more structured. It efficiently communicates the purpose without excessive wording.

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?

Given the simple interface (one param, no output schema), the description is adequate. It states what is returned and the input requirement. However, it does not mention whether the tool handles both author and agency URLs (the schema does) or provide any nuance about URL format. For a simple tool, this is sufficient, but it could be slightly more complete on edge cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'url' parameter as 'Canonical NDTV author or agency URL'. The description reinforces this by stating 'from a canonical author URL' but adds no additional meaning beyond that. It doesn't specify whether it accepts agency URLs as well, which the schema does. 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 it retrieves an NDTV author profile, including byline details and recent stories. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling author tools, the resource is specific. It uses a clear verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'author profile', which distinguishes it from other article 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 usage: provide a canonical NDTV author URL. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ndtv_article or ndtv_headlines, but the context (author profile) is clear. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for different needs.

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