timesofisrael_author

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists output fields and does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or the fact that it's a safe read operation. For a tool that fetches data, this is minimal disclosure, though it does indicate what the caller will receive.

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 core purpose ('Get a Times of Israel author profile') and then lists the return fields. It is efficient and contains no fluff, though it could be slightly more compact. The structure is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 tool without an output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of what is returned but omits details like error handling, whether recent articles are paginated, or any prerequisites for obtaining the canonical URL. It is minimally sufficient but not fully 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 covers 100% of the parameter ('url' with description 'Canonical Times of Israel author URL'). The description repeats a similar phrase ('canonical writer profile URL') without adding new meaning, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and no additional context is provided to raise it.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('Times of Israel author profile'), and enumerates the returned content (byline metadata, biography, social links, recent articles). It is distinct enough from sibling author tools because it names the publication explicitly, even though it doesn't compare itself to alternatives directly.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other author-profile tools or search tools. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'use this when you have a canonical URL, otherwise use search'). The only implied context is that a canonical URL is required, but no decision framework is provided.

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