axios_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Returns the newest public Axios stories', which conveys a read operation and ordering. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavior such as pagination, response format, or rate limits. The description is minimal but not contradictory, so it earns a 3.

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 exactly two sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter explanation is concise in the second. Every word contributes meaning, making it an exemplary concise structure.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is appropriately complete. It states the purpose, defines the parameter with examples, and references a sibling tool for valid values. While it doesn't detail the output format, the lack of an output schema means that is not strictly required. It is sufficient for an agent to make a correct call.

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%, so the schema already documents the topic parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples ('technology' or 'technology/automation-and-ai') and pointing to axios-categories for the full value space. This goes beyond the schema description, justifying a 4.

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 Axios topic headlines' with specific verb and resource, and further specifies it returns newest public stories on a topic or subtopic page. This distinguishes it from siblings like axios_article (which retrieves a specific article) and axios_categories (which lists valid categories). The scope is 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 state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. It does provide guidance on the parameter by referencing axios-categories for the full value space, but that pertains to parameter values, not tool selection. The usage context is implied but not explicit, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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