sportingnews_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the operation is a read ('Returns') and scopes to public profiles, which gives some transparency Mk. However, it does not disclose potential error cases, data freshness, or any limitations beyond the US scope, leaving behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the returned fields. Every word is informative 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?

For a simple read-only author profile fetch with fully documented optional parameters.svg, the description is largely complete: it states the return fields and the scope. It does not explicitly mention how conflicts between url and slug are resolved or what happens if neither is provided, but those are covered by the schema. Without an output schema, the description's return field enumeration provides sufficient context.

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 both url and slug well-described, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, merely hinting at the resource scope.

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 ('Sporting News author profile'), and specifies the exact content returned (name, bio, photo, social links, recent articles). It also scopes to 'Sporting News US author', distinguishing it from analogous author tools for other publications in the sibling list.

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?

No guidance is given on when to select this tool over alternatives (e.g., other author tools) or under what conditions to use it. The description only states what the tool does, not when it is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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