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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and open-world profile. The description adds freshness ('Current') and a scope constraint ('public section' only), which is useful, but discloses nothing about volume, ordering, or country editions.

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?

A single semicolon-joined sentence with the resource stated first and the parameter constraint second. Zero filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the read annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining need is the valid-value source for the required param, which the description does supply, making it largely complete for a one-parameter feed 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 description coverage is 0% and there is no enum on the single required 'section' param. The description partially compensates by naming france24_sections as the source of valid values, but gives no format or example of an acceptable section string.

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?

States a specific resource (France 24 headlines) with a scope qualifier ('one public section'), which is clearer than the bare name. However it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling france24_news or france24_article, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 routes the agent to the correct companion tool by stating 'section must come from france24_sections', which is actionable guidance for invoking it correctly. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over france24_news.

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