apnews_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool may switch to a browser fleet on HTTP failure, explicitly states it does not bypass authentication, and discloses credit costs for both success paths. This goes beyond the minimal and helps the agent anticipate edge cases, though it omits return format details.

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?

The description is three sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the fallback mechanism and billing details. Every sentence adds value and the structure is efficient.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, fallback, and cost. It does not specify the exact shape of returned headlines, but the statement 'Returns AP News headlines' is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. Minor omission of pagination or response format is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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%: the single parameter 'section' is fully described as an enum of slugs with a description. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get AP News section headlines.' It specifies the resource (AP News headlines) and the action (get), and it's distinct from sibling tools like apnews_article (full articles) and apnews_sections (listing sections). The name and description together make the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

The description does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as apnews_news or apnews_sections. While the purpose is clear, there's no guidance on when to prefer this over other AP News tools. The description mentions the fallback behavior and billing, but not usage context relative to siblings.

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