get_featured_authors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the supported groups, default group, returned data types (profiles, biographies, specialties, social links), and pagination limit, which goes beyond minimal disclosure. It omits potential error behavior or authentication needs, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 four sentences long, each adding meaningful information without redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently covers supported groups, return content, pagination, and use cases.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, supported values, return contents, and pagination. It could be more explicit about error handling, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'group' parameter with explicit values and default, and mentions the pagination max. However, it does not explain the exact constraint that limit must be 1 or 12, and startIndex is only hinted at through 'pagination supported', leaving some semantics to inference.

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 'retrieves' with a clear resource ('authors from Tableau Public community groups') and lists the supported groups. It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling tools like get_user_profile and get_workbooks_list, which focus on other entities.

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?

It states the tool is 'useful for discovering influential creators, learning from top community members, and finding quality content sources,' giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the specific use cases imply a distinct role.

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