vox_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 does disclose the canonical-URL constraint and the nature of the returned data, which suggests a read-only retrieval, but it omits details about error conditions, number of recent articles, authentication needs, or rate limits. The disclosure is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, followed by a compact list of return contents. Every sentence adds value.

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 retrieval tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the input format and the return contents. It lacks only minor practical details such as error handling or the format of the URL, which are not critical for basic invocation.

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% and the parameter is already documented as a 'Canonical Vox author URL'. The description's phrase 'from a canonical author URL' largely restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline for high schema coverage.

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') with a clear resource ('Vox author profile') and enumerates the returned content: byline metadata, biography, and recent articles. This clearly separates it from sibling article/headline/news tools for Vox and from author tools of other publications.

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 its usage context by naming the resource type (author profile) and the required input (canonical author URL), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria. The guidance is present only implicitly through the resource naming, so it earns the baseline implied-usage score.

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