skysports_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 mentions the return contents ('public author metadata, biography, and recent articles'), which is useful, but it omits key behavioral details: whether the operation is read-only (likely, but unstated), whether authentication or rate limits apply, how many 'recent articles' are returned or their pagination behavior, and what happens if an invalid or non-canonical URL is passed.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by return contents. It is efficient and easy to parse. However, the second sentence is a run-on list of return items and could be slightly tighter.

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 single-parameter, no-annotation tool, the description is minimally adequate: it says what it returns but lacks enough behavioral context (read-only nature, error handling, output shape, pagination) for an agent to call it confidently without consulting external documentation. No output schema exists, so more detail on the return value would be beneficial.

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 single 'url' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Canonical Sky Sports author URL'). The description adds the same phrase 'canonical author URL,' so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, 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 and resource: 'Get a Sky Sports author profile.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like skysports_article and skysports_headlines by naming the entity (author profile). It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 by specifying 'from a canonical author URL,' which gives the agent a prerequisite. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like skysports_article or skysports_news, nor does it mention how to discover the author URL.

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