nypost_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It describes a read operation (getting a profile), which is implied but not explicitly stated as read-only. It doesn't disclose whether the profile data is mutable, what happens if the URL is invalid or not canonical, or any access restrictions. It doesn't mention any side effects, but for a read tool, that's less critical. However, it's not explicit about the expected response format or potential errors.

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 one sentence, but it packs a lot: it states the purpose and lists all the data fields returned. It's concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and resource. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose and behavior, but it's still efficient.

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 and no annotations, the description does a decent job explaining what the tool does and what it returns. But it's not fully complete: it doesn't specify the expected return structure (JSON list of articles? object?), any error handling, or how to obtain the canonical URL. It covers the essentials but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'url' described as 'Canonical New York Post author URL'. The description adds a bit of context by clarifying the URL is for the author and likely the canonical one, but it doesn't explain what constitutes a canonical URL or provide examples. Since the schema already documents the parameter, baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly exceed that.

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 what the tool does: 'Get a New York Post author profile.' It enumerates the specific data returned — byline metadata, biography, social links, recent articles — and indicates the source is a canonical author URL. This distinguishes it from article or headline tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling author tools like nydailynews_author or nyt_author, but the NY Post branding and profile scope make it distinct enough.

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: to retrieve author profiles from NY Post, but it doesn't provide explicit instructions on when to use this versus other author tools. It says 'from a canonical author URL', which tells the agent what input is needed but not how to find that URL or when to prefer this tool over alternatives. There's no exclusion criteria or sibling mention.

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