reuters_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 mentions the output but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether any authentication or rate limits apply, or what happens on invalid URLs. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit and side effects are not addressed.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key return types. There is no wasted wording or redundant detail, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does and what it returns. It could be enhanced with an example URL or more detail on the structure of the returned data, but given the low complexity, it is largely complete and sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for the 'url' parameter ('Canonical Reuters author URL'), and the tool description repeats this phrase without adding additional format, example, or constraints. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Reuters author profile', and lists the specific data returned: byline metadata, contact/social links, and recent articles. This is distinct from sibling tools like reuters_article or reuters_news, which focus on article content or news feeds.

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 usage when an author profile is needed, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It gives no context about choosing this over reuters_article or other author-related tools, leaving the agent to infer from the name and description.

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