cbr_headlines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that results are 'fresh headlines' from a public RSS section and notes video pages are not readable via the article endpoint, which adds meaningful context. Yet it omits details like response format, pagination, or any rate limiting, which would be expected for a completely transparent description.

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 with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the video caveat is relevant but secondary. It earns a high score for efficiency, though it could slightly tighten the second sentence.

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 adequately covers the necessary context: what it fetches, from where, and a behavioral edge case (videos). The absence of explicit return formatting is a minor gap but not critical for headline retrieval.

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 documents the single 'section' parameter fully with an enum and description 'CBR RSS section slug'. The description adds minimal extra meaning by clarifying that the section corresponds to an RSS section of CBR, but this overlaps with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CBR section headlines'), and adds that it returns fresh headlines from one public RSS section. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like cbr_article or other headlines tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It clearly implies this tool is for fetching headlines from a CBR section by specifying the section parameter's role Erasmus. The video-page caveat also hints at when the article endpoint would not work, providing useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other headline/news tools.

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