cbc_headlines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns fresh headlines from a public RSS feed and that video, radio, and live-updates links are omitted. This gives the agent a clear picture of the content and its limitations. However, it does not describe the exact return structure or error handling, which are minor gaps for a simple read operation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds information: the action, the source and freshness, and the exclusions. There is no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what it does, what it returns, and what it omits. It does not specify the exact fields of the returned headlines, but that may be inferred. It is largely complete for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect.

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 provides full coverage for the single parameter 'section' with a description 'CBC section slug' and an enum of valid values. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline for 100% coverage. The description mentions 'one public section RSS feed' which reinforces the section concept, but that is already implied by the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'CBC News section headlines'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cbc_article (full articles) and cbc_author by focusing on headlines per section. It also specifies that it returns both CBC News and CBC Sports headlines from an RSS feed, which adds precision.

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 the tool is used for fetching headlines for a specific section, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like cbc_article or cbc_sections. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The purpose is clear, but the description does not direct the agent to other tools for other needs.

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