usatoday_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return payload (name, bio, social accounts, recent articles) and the input requirement (canonical staff page URL), which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether any authentication or rate limits apply, or how errors (e.g., invalid URL) are handled. For a read-only tool this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 only two sentences and is front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence identifies the action and resource; the second adds specific return fields and input requirement. There is no verbosity or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the fields returned, and the required input. It does not discuss error handling, pagination, or any edge cases, but these are minor for this tool's simplicity. It provides enough context for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the output.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'url' parameter (described as 'Canonical USA Today staff URL'). The description's mention of 'from a canonical staff page URL' adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('USA Today staff/author profile'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, bio, social accounts, recent articles). This clearly distinguishes it as an author-profile tool, and the USA Today brand sets it apart from the many other outlet-specific author tools in the sibling list (e.g., nzherald_author, apnews_author).

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 this tool (when you need a USA Today author's profile) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions like 'for article content use usatoday_article' or 'for headlines use usatoday_headlines'. No explicit routing guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and description.

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