businessstandard_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns headlines and that the sections are public, implying a read-only, unauthenticated operation. However, it does not specify pagination, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data, which are relevant for a headlines tool. The mention of 'fresh' and 'public' adds some transparency, but not comprehensive behavioral detail.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core action. It is concise and without superfluous information. It earns a 4 because it is efficient, though it could be even tighter if it omitted the redundant second sentence that largely restates the first.

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 enum parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks some context. It does not describe the response format (e.g., list of headlines with titles and URLs), which would be helpful for an agent. It also does not mention pagination or limits on the number of headlines. Given no output schema, the description should carry that responsibility, so it falls short of complete.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter 'section' with an enum list and a description ('Business Standard section slug'). The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 retrieves Business Standard section headlines, naming the publication and the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling headlines tools by explicitly identifying the source (Business Standard). However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with other publications' headlines tools, which would make it a 5.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., other news headlines tools). It only states what it does; there is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers. The agent must infer from the tool name that it is specific to Business Standard, but the description offers no decision support.

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