theage_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 clearly indicates a read-only retrieval via 'Get' and 'Returns' and lists the response content, which is helpful. However, it does not mention what happens for invalid or non-canonical URLs, site restrictions, or limitations on 'recent stories,' leaving meaningful 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 two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently packs the returned fields and the required URL format into the second sentence without redundancy. Every word 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?

With only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned data: name, biography, headshot, contact email, social links, and recent stories. It does not cover failure cases or pagination details, but for a simple profile lookup it is nearly complete.

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 'url' parameter as 'Canonical The Age journalist URL,' so the baseline is 3. The description adds the exact URL pattern https://www.theage.com.au/by/<name>-<id>, giving the agent more precise input semantics. This added format detail justifies a score above baseline.

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: getting an Age journalist's profile. It enumerates the profile fields and specifies the canonical theage.com.au URL format, making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling author tools like smh_author or nzherald_author, so it's clear but not overtly differentiated.

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 a clear usage condition: use this when you have a canonical The Age journalist by-URL. It names the input source and the domain, so an agent can infer when to select it. It does not list alternatives or exclusion cases, but the domain-specific scope provides sufficient context.

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