list_blog_authors

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation, and the limit behavior is documented, but the description does not disclose whether the returned authors are ordered, filtered, or restricted by permissions. This is acceptable for a simple list but not highly 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?

The description is extremely concise: one purpose sentence plus one parameter explanation. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what the tool returns and how to constrain the result. It could be slightly more complete by noting whether the list is exhaustive or capped, but the default and maximum limit make the behavior clear enough.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'limit' property, but the tool description documents its maximum range (1-100) and default (100). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage for the only parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List blog authors'. It goes beyond the tool name by stating the intended use case ('for setting author_id on a blog post draft'), which also distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_blog_posts and list_blogs.

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 phrase 'for setting author_id on a blog post draft' clearly indicates when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool has the same purpose, so the guidance is sufficient for an agent to select it.

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