newsweek_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add behavioral context by stating the profile is 'public' and that it returns 'one page' of recent articles, implying pagination behavior. However, it omits details like error conditions, rate limits, or what happens with invalid identifiers. Some transparency is present, but not comprehensive.

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 purpose ('Get a Newsweek author profile') and immediately followed by the return payload. Every sentence contributes essential information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it states the returned fields and the one-page limitation. Combined with the 100% schema coverage on parameters, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention identifier precedence or edge cases, but these are minor gaps for this complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (url, page, slug). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics; it only lists return fields. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter meaning without requiring description compensation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get a Newsweek author profile') and enumerates the returned fields (name, job title, bio, email, one page of recent articles). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling author tools for other publications (e.g., nzherald_author, apnews_author).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools. The only usage signal is the tool name itself, which is weak. It lacks any explicit 'use this when' or 'prefer this over X' statement.

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