rappler_author

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states the output contents but omits error conditions, handling of missing authors, pagination of articles, or any rate limits. As a read-only 'Get' operation, side effects are implied safe, but the description doesn't explicitly state this. It adds useful context about what is returned but leaves gaps.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. Efficient and clear.

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 low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It lists return fields, but does not address edge cases like both parameters being omitted, parameter precedence, or error handling. Given the simplicity, this is nearly complete but could be slightly more thorough.

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% for both url and slug, so the schema already documents their purpose. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, such as which one to prefer or precedence when both are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles the parameter documentation.

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' with a clear resource 'Rappler author profile' and explicitly lists the returned fields (name, bio, public social links, recent articles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rappler_article or rappler_headlines, which serve different purposes.

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 purpose implicitly tells an agent to use this when an author profile is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. With many similar author tools (e.g., nzherald_author), more explicit routing would help, but the name and description are sufficient for basic selection.

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