polygon_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 behavioral disclosure. It does reveal what the tool returns (profile metadata, bio, social links, recent articles) and the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't address failure modes, pagination, or URL format edge cases. For a simple getter this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The slight repetition of 'Polygon author' in both sentences is minor and does not detract from readability.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the key pieces: what the tool does, what it returns, and what input to provide. It could be slightly more explicit about the shape of 'recent articles' or error behavior, but an agent has enough context to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, with the url parameter already described as 'Canonical Polygon author URL'. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'canonical author URL' but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Polygon author profile'), and the second sentence enumerates the exact contents (byline metadata, biography, social links, recent articles). This clearly separates polygon_author from sibling tools like polygon_article and polygon_sections, and from other publications' author tools.

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 when to use the tool ('from a canonical author URL') and gives the context of an author profile lookup, but it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives. An agent can infer usage from the purpose, but there is no routing guidance against sibling tools.

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