news18_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. It does disclose the output shape (byline, bio, social links, recent articles) and the required input form. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits, which is acceptable for a simple read-only fetch but leaves some behavioral aspects unstated.

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 ('Get a News18 author profile') and then a concise list of return contents. There is no fluff, repetition, or extraneous information; every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what it does, what input it takes, and what it returns. It is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It could optionally include an example URL or mention error cases, but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides full coverage with the description 'Canonical News18 author URL'. The tool description merely repeats this same requirement without adding format details, validation rules, or examples. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3 and the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a News18 author profile.' It also enumerates the return fields (byline metadata, biography, social links, recent articles) which clearly distinguishes it from article or headline tools. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling author tools, but the name and content make the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'from a canonical author URL' implies the tool should be used when an author URL is available later. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over news18_article or other author tools, nor does it give exclusions or alternative routing. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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