timesofindia_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns a public profile with specific fields, which is useful, but it does not mention any side effects (e.g., read-only nature), potential errors, rate limits, or prerequisites beyond the URL. The 'public profile' wording hints at no authentication, but this is not explicit. The description is not misleading, but it adds limited behavioral context.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the return fields. There is no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it 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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lists the expected return fields (name, job title, headshot, biography, recent articles), which gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect. It does not mention details like how many recent articles or whether the profile is always available, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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 coverage is 100% – the URL parameter is described as 'Canonical Times of India author URL' in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, example, or how to obtain it). Since the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get a Times of India author profile' – a specific verb and resource – and enumerates the expected return fields (name, job title, headshot, biography, recent articles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like timesofindia_article (which fetches an article) and other publication-specific author tools (e.g., nzherald_author) by explicitly naming the target publication.

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 when to use it (when you need a Times of India author's profile) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not say 'Use this for Times of India authors; for other publications use the corresponding author tool' – the differentiation is left to the tool name. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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