cna_headlines

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'fresh headlines' and 'public' which implies read-only public access, but it does not disclose response shape, pagination, or any rate limiting. The behavior described is consistent with a simple read operation, but lacks depth; no contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence reinforces the public/single-section nature. This is concise without being under-specified.

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 read tool, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema and no annotation safety profile, an agent is left without expectations about return structure or freshness guarantees. The sibling set is large, so a note on where this fits among cna_* tools would improve completeness. Overall, adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the parameter is fully described as 'CNA section slug' with an enum of five sections. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only noting that headlines come from 'one public CNA section'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get CNA section headlines' with a specified scope ('one public CNA section'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like cna_news or cna_sections, but the noun 'headlines' and the section focus provide fair clarity.

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 by mentioning a section parameter and 'fresh headlines', but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives. Sibling tools like cna_news, cna_article, and cna_sections exist, so an explicit exclusion or alternative note would have been helpful. There is no misleading guidance, but the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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