sevennewsau_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 accurately conveys that the profile is public (a read operation), lists the data fields returned, and implies no side effects. It does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but for a straightforward read tool this is adequate. No contradictions with annotations exist since none are present.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the output contents without any filler or redundant phrasing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description enumerates the expected return fields, which is valuable without an output schema. However, it does not explicitly state that at least one of the two parameters (url or slug) must be provided, even though neither is marked as required in the schema. This ambiguity could lead an agent to call with no parameters and receive an error. Minor gap.

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 parameters ('url' and 'slug'), and the schema already explains their purpose and format. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('a 7NEWS Australia author profile'), and enumerates the returned content (name, job title, biography, portrait, social links, latest stories). The publisher is disambiguated from the many sibling *_author tools by the explicit '7NEWS Australia' qualifier, so an agent can distinguish it from, e.g., nzherald_author or pcgamer_author.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving 7NEWS author profiles, which is sufficient context given the tool name and the publisher-specific siblings. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.

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