propublica_author

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response contents precisely, including the 'where published' qualifier (email/socials may be absent) and the 'one page' pagination of stories. It does not cover failure modes, invalid-URL behavior, or story ordering, but the read-only nature and public-data scope are clearly conveyed.

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 the action front-loaded and zero filler. The first sentence states the function; the second enumerates the return payload. Appropriately sized for a simple profile tool.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates by itemizing the return payload. With no annotations, a brief note on error behavior or explicit read-only confirmation would increase completeness, but the tool is simple, well-scoped, and callable without further context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by tying the `page` parameter to 'one page of their recent bylined stories,' clarifying what pagination applies to, but it adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ProPublica staff profile'), then itemizes the return payload: name, bio, contact email, social accounts, and one page of bylined stories. The ProPublica branding and 'staff profile' scope clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like propublica_article, propublica_headlines, propublica_news, and other publishers' 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 use case is implied clearly: call this when you need a ProPublica staff/contributor profile via a canonical propublica.org/people/<slug> URL. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives (e.g., propublica_article for article content), leaving routing to the agent's inference.

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