newyorker_author

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the scope of returned data (first page of recent articles, not all articles) and the input requirement (canonical URL). However, it doesn't mention potential pagination, rate limits, or what happens with invalid URLs.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get a The New Yorker contributor profile') and then lists the returned data. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, what it returns, and what input it needs. However, it lacks guidance on URL format specifics or error handling, and the absence of annotations means more behavioral context would be valuable.

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% for the single 'url' parameter, which is described as 'Canonical The New Yorker contributor URL'. The description reinforces this by saying 'from a canonical contributor URL' but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Get a The New Yorker contributor profile' and enumerates the returned data (name, photo, biography, external profile links, recent articles). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like newyorker_article and newyorker_headlines by focusing on contributor profiles, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 context by specifying it takes a 'canonical contributor URL' and returns profile data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like newyorker_article or nzherald_author, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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