thedailybeast_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. It discloses that the tool returns a public profile ('public profile' implies read-only) and lists the returned fields. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor mention rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. The description adds some behavioral context beyond the schema but is not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The action ('Get') and resource ('author profile') are front-loaded, and the return fields are listed compactly. Every clause adds information; no redundancy other than a slight overlap between 'author profile' and 'reporter's public profile', which still adds specificity.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the input requirement, the single result, and enumerates the data fields returned. It doesn't address error handling, invalid URLs, or notable behaviors like pagination of recent articles, but those are minor gaps for a simple read tool.

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 the url parameter described as 'Canonical thedailybeast.com/author/<slug> URL'. The description repeats this as 'from a canonical author URL' without adding new detail (e.g., examples, formatting rules, or what constitutes canonical). Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the 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?

Description starts with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'The Daily Beast author profile', then enumerates the fields returned (name, job title, biography, headshot, social link, recent articles). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like thedailybeast_article or other publisher-specific author tools (nzherald_author, apnews_author) because it names the exact publication and profile resource.

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?

Provides clear context: the tool returns an author profile and requires a canonical author URL. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it (e.g., for individual articles or other sites). This is a clear contextual description but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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