newscomau_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; it does disclose a read-only fetch ('Get ... Returns ...') and enumerates the returned data. It does not cover error behavior, invalid or non-canonical URL handling, or recent-article limits. That is acceptable for a simple retrieval tool but not rich behavioral context.

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?

One compact sentence places the core action first and lists the returned payload in a clear parenthetical. There is no filler, no redundant annotation information, and every clause adds signal.

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?

The description defines the input source and enumerates the output fields, which is sufficient given a single parameter and no output schema. It could be more complete by noting behavior for non-canonical URLs or whether recent articles are paginated or limited, but these are not blockers for correct invocation.

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%, with the single url parameter already documented as 'Canonical News.com.au author URL'. The description restates the same idea without adding format details, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and a named resource ('News.com.au author profile'), then enumerates the returned fields (name, job title, headshot, biography, social links, recent articles). This clearly separates it from siblings like newscomau_article, which target article content rather than an author profile.

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 the use case—fetching a profile plus recent articles for a News.com.au author—but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. It also does not explicitly mention exclusions such as only staff writers being covered, though 'staff writer's profile' hints at it. Guidance is usable but largely implied.

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