dailyrecord_headlines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns 'fresh' headlines and works only for 'public' sections, which adds useful context about the operation's scope and nature. However, it does not mention any rate limits, authentication, or potential side effects, though these are unlikely for a simple read operation. The additional context (public, fresh) justifies a mid-range score.

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 extremely concise—two sentences totaling about 13 words—with the core purpose front-loaded. There is no unnecessary detail or redundancy. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with one parameter, but it lacks detail about the return format. It only says 'Returns fresh headlines' without specifying whether these are strings, objects with titles and links, or something else. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide some indication of the returned structure. This is a notable gap, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates the impact.

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 input schema already provides a description for the 'section' parameter ('Daily Record section slug'), and the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any new meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema states. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and no extra parameter information is provided, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Daily Record section headlines', making the purpose clear. It also clarifies scope with 'from one public Daily Record section', which differentiates it from tools like dailyrecord_sections (which likely lists sections) and dailyrecord_article (which fetches a specific article). However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it falls short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dailyrecord_article or dailyrecord_sections. The description simply states what it does without mentioning when it is appropriate or when other tools should be preferred. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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