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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the scoping constraint ('one public section'), but says nothing about pagination, result count limits, or freshness beyond 'current'. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 sentence, two clauses, zero filler. The scope constraint is front-loaded before the dependency note.

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 values need not be described. The description covers what it does and the one input constraint; it could still clarify that only one section is accepted per call and whether results are limited or paginated.

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% and the schema already enumerates all valid slugs, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by asserting the values must originate from abcau_sections, turning a static enum list into a workflow constraint.

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 (returns headlines), resource (ABC News Australia headlines), and scope (one public section) in a single clause. This distinguishes it from abcau_news (broader feed) and abcau_article (single story) without needing the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to abcau_sections as the source of a valid section value, which is a real prerequisite. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., wanting full article bodies, which abcau_article covers), so it falls short of a 5.

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