variety_author

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only 'Get' operation and importantly discloses the pagination behavior ('one page of their recent articles'), which prevents the agent from expecting all articles. It does not cover rate limits, auth requirements, or 404 behavior, but for a simple fetch this is reasonably transparent.

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 crisp sentences front-load the verb and resource, followed by a compact list of return fields. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of schema details or filler.

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?

The description covers the purpose, return fields, and pagination limit, which is good for a simple getter. However, the schema shows no required parameters, yet the description does not state that at least one of url or slug should be supplied, nor does it clarify error behavior for an unknown author. Minor gaps like this lower completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents url, page, and slug well, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds minor context ('one page', 'recent articles') but does not clarify the relationship or precedence between url, slug, and page beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('Variety author profile'), then enumerates the exact return fields: name, biography, social links, and one page of recent articles. This clearly separates it from sibling author tools for other publications (e.g., nzherald_author, apnews_author) and Variety content tools (variety_article, variety_headlines).

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 context is clear: an agent should call this when it needs a Variety author's profile and recent articles. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., 'for a full article list use variety_headlines') or name alternatives, so it misses the top tier.

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