straitstimes_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what the tool returns (byline metadata and recent articles), but it does not mention potential edge cases, error conditions, or the structure of the returned data. It is not misleading, but it lacks depth beyond the basic output.

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 two concise sentences with no superfluous words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the return value is specified in a direct manner. It is efficient and to the point.

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 tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to call it correctly. It states what the tool does and what input is needed. It could be more complete by describing the response format, but given the simplicity, it 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?

The schema already describes the single parameter 'url' as 'Canonical The Straits Times author URL', and the description repeats this phrase without adding extra meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 action (Get), the resource (The Straits Times author profile), and what is returned (byline metadata and recent articles). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like straitstimes_article and straitstimes_news by focusing on author profiles. The verb and resource are specific and 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 context by mentioning 'from a canonical author URL', indicating the prerequisite input. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like straitstimes_article or straitstimes_news, nor does it mention any exclusions. This is a moderate gap.

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