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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (live external data). The description adds the constraint that only 'one public section' can be queried at a time, which is useful scoping behavior, but doesn't disclose return format, freshness, or pagination.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core capability and appends the key constraint. No waste.

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 one-param read tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present (so return values needn't be explained), this is largely complete. The prerequisite-parameter hint is the crucial missing piece that gets supplied. Only marginally short on freshness or format details.

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 are no enums, so the schema provides only the field name 'section'. The description compensates by stating the value must come from newscomau_sections, which is genuinely useful guidance and pushes above the baseline, but doesn't clarify format (slug vs. name).

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 verb+resource: 'Current News.com.au headlines for one public section'. This is clear but doesn't differentiate from siblings like newscomau_news or the generic pattern of many *_headlines tools; it relies on the site name to distinguish.

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?

Implies usage: section must be obtained from newscomau_sections. This is a useful hint that routes the agent to a prerequisite sibling, but it doesn't state when to use headlines vs. news vs. article tools, nor any exclusions.

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