list_blog_authors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the default return shape (id+name), the effect of the detail parameter (medium for email/social links), and the active-brand scoping. It omits pagination/error behavior, but for a simple read-only list tool this is adequate.

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 wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, the second clarifies output verbosity and gives a practical integration tip. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 2-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, default output, detail levels, and integration. It does not specify sorting, pagination, or whether archived authors are included, but the description is sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, including detailed explanations of the detail enum and brandId fallback. The description adds only a specific example of what medium returns (email/social links), which is a minor increment beyond the schema's generic 'key summary fields + counts'.

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 and resource: 'List all blog authors for the active brand.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_blog_categories and create_blog_author. The active-brand scope and default output are also stated upfront.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (enumerate authors for the active brand) and adds a downstream integration hint by noting author IDs can be passed to generate_blog_post or update_blog_article. It does not explicitly exclude alternative list tools, but the purpose is clear enough for correct selection.

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