phillyinquirer_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 accurately conveys a non-destructive retrieval operation and scopes the behavior ('one staff author's public profile'), which is genuinely useful. However, it leaves uncovered: parameter precedence when both url and slug are given, behavior for non-staff or nonexistent authors, and pagination/freshness of 'latest listed stories'.

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 with zero waste: the core purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, and sentence two adds the return contract. The slight repetition of 'Philadelphia Inquirer' is acceptable scoping for a tool in a large sibling family. Every sentence earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with 2 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, from which publication, and what the result contains. The absence of an output schema raises the bar slightly, and the description compensates by listing the top-level content types. Minor gaps (param precedence, staff-only boundary, detailed return shape) keep it from 5.

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 both parameters fully (url as an alternative to slug, slug with a concrete example). Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 with high coverage; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but none is needed.

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+resource pair ('Get a Philadelphia Inquirer author profile') and names the publication, distinguishing it from the many sibling <publication>_author tools and from the confusable inquirer_author (Philippine Daily Inquirer family) in the sibling list. The enumerated return fields further differentiate it from phillyinquirer_article and phillyinquirer_headlines.

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 context is implied through the return-value list (name, role, biography, social links, latest stories), which signals an agent to pick this tool over phillyinquirer_article for biographical/author-level queries. However, no alternative is named and no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the routing must be inferred rather than stated.

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