nymag_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the output composition (byline metadata, biography, recent articles) and the canonical-URL input requirement, but it is silent on error behavior, pagination of recent articles, and output structure. There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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?

Two sentences of roughly 30 words, with the verb+resource front-loaded and the return-value enumeration placed second. Every word earns its place with no 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input requirement and sketches all three return-value categories, which substitutes for the missing output schema at a high level. It stops short of describing exact output shape or pagination, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, as the single 'url' parameter already includes the description 'Canonical New York Magazine author URL'. The description's phrase 'from a canonical author URL' merely reinforces the schema and adds no new meaning, 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('New York Magazine author profile'), and the second sentence names the returned content: byline metadata, biography, and recent articles. The 'New York Magazine' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from the many other *_author siblings and from nymag_article, nymag_headlines, nymag_news, and nymag_sections.

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?

Usage is implied — an agent would select this when it needs an author's byline, biography, or recent articles — but the description never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. Selection among the large sibling family of *_author and nymag_* tools is left to inference from tool names rather than guidance.

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