gbnews_headlines

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds only 'fresh' and 'public' as context, but does not disclose return shape, pagination, ordering, rate limits, or behavior for empty or invalid feeds. This is largely a restatement of the tool's core operation rather than meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 with the primary action front-loaded. The second sentence adds 'fresh' and 'one public section or topic feed', though it partially restates the first. It is efficient and free of obvious filler.

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 single-parameter read-only headlines tool, the description plus exhaustive enum is nearly sufficient to invoke it correctly. However, with no output schema, the description does not specify what a returned 'headline' contains (e.g., title, URL, timestamp) or whether results are paginated. It is adequate but leaves meaningful 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema's enum and property description ('GB News section or topic path') already document the single parameter thoroughly. The description adds negligible semantic value beyond saying the feed is 'public' and singular. A baseline score of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Get GB News section headlines.' The phrase 'from one public section or topic feed' clarifies that the section argument selects a single feed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like gbnews_sections or gbnews_news, but the resource and action are clearly identified.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus gbnews_sections, gbnews_news, or gbnews_article. The only implied usage comes from the required 'section' parameter; there are no stated alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions.

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