stuff_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 states it returns a public profile, which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly mention safety, side effects, error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description does not go beyond stating what fields are returned, leaving behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose ('Get a Stuff author profile') and then lists the output fields. Every sentence contributes useful information, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned by listing the fields. It does not mention potential issues like missing data, pagination of stories, or error scenarios, but for a straightforward profile retrieval it is reasonably complete. The lack of usage guidance slightly reduces completeness, but the core information is present.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (url and slug), and the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not compensate further.

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 tool gets a Stuff author profile, specifying the resource (Stuff author) and action (get). It lists the returned fields, which is concrete and distinguishes it from article tools like stuff_article. The name itself is unambiguous, and the description avoids tautology.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other author tools for different publishers (e.g., nzherald_author) or when to use the url vs slug parameters. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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