globeandmail_sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the list is complete ('Lists every'), public, RSS-backed, and sourced from the site's primary navigation. It does not discuss pagination, ordering, or failure modes, but for a simple zero-parameter enumeration tool the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the subsequent sentences add valuable detail about the output fields and data source without repeating the tool name or schema.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple list output, the description is complete: it states what is listed, which fields are returned, and the source of the taxonomy. Even without an output schema, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret its results.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and nothing in the description suggests hidden or optional parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List Globe and Mail sections.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like globeandmail_article or globeandmail_headlines by explaining that it returns the section taxonomy with slug, display name, and landing-page URL. This clearly separates it from other Globe and Mail tools.

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 states that this tool lists sections 'accepted by /globeandmail/headlines,' which implies the intended use case: obtain valid section identifiers for headline requests. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the relationship to headlines and the taxonomy-focused purpose provide adequate guidance.

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