investopedia_author

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does disclose the operation type (a read: 'Get... Returns...') and a thorough list of the returned fields. However, it is silent on behaviors such as pagination or truncation of 'recent articles' and what happens with malformed or non-canonical URLs, which matters all the more because there are no annotations covering these.

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?

One well-organized, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource before listing the return fields. The enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema to carry that information; still, it could be marginally tightened without losing value.

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 one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential ground: the purpose and a detailed return payload that compensates for the missing output schema, with the URL format fully documented in the schema. The only real gap is the absence of usage guidance versus sibling tools and ambiguity around how 'recent articles' are delivered.

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 100%: the schema already documents the single url parameter, including that it must be a canonical Investopedia author URL and giving both accepted formats (/<name>-<id> or /contributors/<id>/). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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-resource pair ('Get an Investopedia author or expert profile') and then enumerates the return payload in detail (name, title, credentials, biography, recent articles, etc.), leaving no doubt about the tool's function. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling investopedia_article and the many other *_author tools by its explicit Investopedia author/expert focus, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description never states when this tool should be preferred over investopedia_article or the other *_author siblings, and it surfaces no exclusions or alternatives; an agent must infer the use case purely from the tool name and the implied return payload.

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