economictimes_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation returns a public profile, implying a read-only action, but it does not mention potential error cases (e.g., invalid URL), rate limits, or pagination of recent articles. It provides basic transparency about the output but lacks depth.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the specific data fields with a colon. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the core purpose and the exact information returned, which is sufficient for most use cases. Minor omissions like error handling or article listing details do not significantly impact usability.

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 already covers the only parameter 'url' with a clear description ('Canonical Economic Times author URL'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Economic Times author profile', then enumerates the exact fields returned (name, job title, biography, headshot, recent articles). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like economictimes_article or economictimes_sections because it targets author profiles specifically.

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 implies the tool is for fetching an author profile, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other publication author tools or economictimes_article). The purpose is clear enough that an agent would infer the appropriate context, but no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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