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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-fetch profile is covered. The description adds only the word "Current," which hints at freshness but does not describe rate limits, caching, or result volume. With annotations and an output schema carrying the rest, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentence with no waste. The scope (one public section) is front-loaded and the constraint follows immediately, so the agent gets everything in one pass.

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 explained, annotations cover the safety profile, and the single parameter is fully documented. What it returns, its scope, and how to source the section are all present; only the relationship to the rte_news sibling is unaddressed.

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 the documented section slugs, so the baseline is 3. The description's only added nuance is that the value must come from rte_sections, implying the list may be dynamic rather than fixed, which is mildly useful beyond the static enum list.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("headlines") scoped to "one public section" of RTÉ News, which is clear and concrete. It references the rte_sections sibling as the source of valid sections, but it does not distinguish itself from the closely related rte_news or rte_article siblings, so the boundary between headline-listing and full news retrieval is left to inference.

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 states a real prerequisite: "section must come from rte_sections," which tells the agent to call the section-listing tool first rather than guessing. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against rte_news, but the context is actionable.

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