wsj_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that data is read directly from the live page, that the page sits behind an access wall, and that a nonexistent author slug returns 404. This gives an agent meaningful expectations beyond the basic 'get' verb, though it does not address rate limits or output pagination.

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 two sentences and roughly 45 words. Every clause serves a purpose: the first defines the output contents, the second adds live-source and error context. There is no repetition 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 output fields and a key error condition, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it leaves a material gap: the schema marks both slug and url as optional with nothing required, and the description does not say that one of them must be provided or what happens if both are given. This incomplete guidance could lead to invalid calls.

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%, with both slug and url already documented. The description adds only an error-behavior note (404 for a bad slug), which is more about failure semantics than about the meaning of each parameter. It does not clarify precedence when both are provided, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 and resource: 'Get a Wall Street Journal author's profile and recent articles.' It further specifies the returned contents (name, job title, bio, social links), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling wsj_article, but the 'author's profile' scope is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: if you need a WSJ author's profile and recent articles, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools, nor any mention of when to choose slug versus url, or that at least one identifier is needed despite the schema listing zero required parameters.

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