birminghammail_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: returns 'fresh headlines,' and notably omits photo galleries because they lack readable article bodies. This adds value beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover pagination, error handling, or return format.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a crucial behavioral note. Every word earns its place.

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 covers the key aspects: what it returns (headlines), the source (public section), and a notable omission (photo galleries). However, it does not describe the output structure (e.g., array of objects with title/link), which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 100% (the parameter description 'Birmingham Mail section slug' is complete), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no further meaning about the parameter; it only repeats 'public section' which is already implied. The enum in the schema carries the valid values.

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 a specific action: 'Get Birmingham Mail section headlines.' It specifies the resource (Birmingham Mail section) and scope (one public section), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on section-specific headlines rather than articles, authors, or section lists.

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 implies usage for retrieving headlines from a specific section (since a section parameter is required) and mentions 'public section,' but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like birminghammail_news or birminghammail_sections, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but not explicit about alternatives.

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