philstar_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that the tool returns public archive data, includes the profile photo only 'when set,' and limits stories to the 'first page' of the archive. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'get author' statement, though it does not discuss errors, rate limits, or optional parameter precedence.

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 well-ordered sentences: the first states what the tool returns, the second explains how to identify the target author. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It states what is returned, the optional photo behavior, the first-page limitation, and how to supply either the id or URL. An agent has what it needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the byline URL pattern and the numeric id, but this largely restates what the schema already says for 'id' and 'url.' It does not materially deepen parameter 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Philstar author archive.' It clearly defines the resource as one author's public archive and differentiates it from article, headline, news, and section tools by naming the author-archive scope. The id-from-byline guidance further pins down what this tool uniquely operates on.

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 makes clear when to use this tool: when you need a Philstar author's public archive and their recent stories. It also gives concrete identification instructions via the numeric byline id and the alternative URL form. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the resource name and scoping make the intended use clear.

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