techcrunch_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it states this is a public profile, enumerates the fields returned, and notes that only one page of recent articles is returned. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover response format or potential errors.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It opens with the action and resource, then efficiently enumerates the returned fields. Every clause 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?

This is a low-complexity tool with only two parameters and no output schema. The description compensates for the missing output schema by listing the return fields, and the schema fully documents the parameters. Minor gaps such as pagination behavior beyond 'one page' and default handling are not explicitly described, but the schema covers the default for page.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by explaining that the page parameter corresponds to 'one page of their recent articles,' but it does not add substantive meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the url parameter.

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 and resource: 'Get a TechCrunch author profile,' and enumerates the returned content (name, job title, headshot, biography, social links, recent articles). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like techcrunch_article or techcrunch_headlines, but the author-profile resource is self-evident and distinct.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended use is implied by the tool name and description, but no exclusions or sibling alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when this should be chosen over article, news, or headline tools.

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