scmp_author

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states that the tool returns a public profile and recent articles, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error behavior, pagination of recent articles, or other edge cases, leaving a moderate gap in transparency.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, the exact return fields, and the input requirement. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description itself must convey what is returned. It does this well by enumerating profile attributes and mentioning recent articles. The only notable gap is the unspecified structure of the recent articles, but for a one-parameter author-profile tool this is adequate.

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%: the url parameter is already documented as 'Canonical scmp.com/author/<slug> URL'. The description's phrase 'from a canonical author URL' reinforces but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. 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 ('SCMP author/reporter profile'), then enumerates the returned fields: name, role, biography, areas of expertise, languages, location, headshot, contact/social links, and recent articles. It also specifies the input source ('canonical author URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scmp_article or scmp_headlines.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for retrieving a South China Morning Post author/reporter's public profile and requires a canonical scmp.com/author/<slug> URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance, but the intended use case is unmistakable.

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