cnn_headlines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the stream is 'current' (implying real-time) and lists the returned fields (title, URL, description, publication time, image when available). However, it does not mention any limitations such as pagination, number of headlines returned, caching behavior, or potential delays. Without contradictions (no annotations), the description provides some behavioral context but not comprehensive 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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the key phrase 'CNN section headlines.' It avoids redundancy and includes only essential information about what is returned. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to call it correctly: it states the resource, scope, and return fields. It does not detail pagination or exact response format, but the listed fields offer a sufficient picture. Given the low complexity, the description is nearly complete—only minor additions like default section behavior or update frequency would make it fully comprehensive.

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% for the single parameter 'section,' which includes an enum of allowed values and a default. The description only says 'for one section,' which adds minimal meaning. Since the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not add significant extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 action and scope: 'Returns the current CNN headline stream for one section.' It specifies the resource (CNN), the verb (returns), and the precise scope (one section), and it enumerates the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cnn_article or cnn_live_story without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for headlines as opposed to article content, nor does it reference any sibling tools. The only implicit usage hint is 'for one section,' but no explicit 'use this when you need headlines' or 'use cnn_article for full article text.' The description leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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