content_browse_authors

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

Discloses read-only nature and filtering behavior (only authors with at least one published post). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; could add more on rate limits or pagination, but sufficient for a browse tool.

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?

Well-structured with sections (main, USE CASE, INCLUDE OPTIONS, NOTE, RETURNS). Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Covers return format, include options, and filtering. No output schema but description provides adequate return info. Lacks error handling or performance details, but acceptable for a browse tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context for the 'include' parameter (count.posts) but repeats schema info for 'limit'. Minimal added value beyond schema.

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 explicitly states 'Browse public authors from Ghost Content API (read-only)' with concrete use cases, making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings by resource name and mentions alternative tools (admin_browse_users) for staff without posts.

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?

Provides explicit USE CASE examples and a NOTE about when to use an alternative (admin_browse_users for staff without posts), guiding the agent on appropriate usage.

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