Fetch fresh headlines from a selected public entertainment-news section or vertical feed by passing its slug, so you can track current stories by topic.
Get Deadline section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public Deadline section or vertical feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Deadline section slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: headlines are 'fresh' and the section is 'public', implying current data and no authentication requirement. However, it does not explicitly state the read-only nature, output format, pagination, or error behavior, which are gaps for a read operation with zero annotation coverage.
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 crisp sentences with no waste. The action is front-loaded ('Get Deadline section headlines.'), and the second sentence adds only relevant scope and detail. Every word earns its place.
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 a fully documented enum, the description adequately explains what is returned ('fresh headlines') and from where ('one public Deadline section or vertical feed'). The lack of an output schema means the return structure is unspecified, but the low complexity and high schema coverage make this a minor gap; an agent can still invoke correctly.
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%: the 'section' parameter has a description ('Deadline section slug') and a full enum of allowed values. The description adds the notion of a single 'public' section or vertical feed, but does not explain how to select among the enum values beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get Deadline section headlines'. The scope is further sharpened by 'from one public Deadline section or vertical feed', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deadline_article (full article content) and deadline_sections (section listing), as well as headline tools from other publications.
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: when you need fresh headlines from a particular Deadline section. However, it does not explicitly say when to use alternatives such as deadline_sections to discover available sections or deadline_article for full content, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance. With many sibling tools present, more explicit routing would be stronger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.