sfgate_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 adds useful context that author pages are served through proxied browser renderers and explicitly states the service does not bypass authentication or access controls. This is meaningful beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover error behavior or rate limits.

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 no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and return fields; the second adds a relevant behavioral caveat. Every sentence 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it states the input, lists the return fields, and discloses a key limitation. It doesn't explain how to obtain a canonical author URL or describe error behavior, but those are minor gaps for this tool.

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%, with the single 'url' parameter described as 'Canonical SFGate author URL'. The description repeats this phrase ('from a canonical author URL') without adding new meaning, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. Baseline 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') and resource ('SFGate author profile'), and lists the returned fields: name, job title, biography, headshot, public profile links, and recent articles. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling author tools, but the SFGate resource is clear and unique among the many publication-specific 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 description implies when to use the tool: when you need an SFGate author profile from a canonical author URL. It mentions the input prerequisite ('from a canonical author URL') but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool versus sibling tools like sfgate_article or other author tools.

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