gq_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 context about the returned slugs being 'verified to list live stories', which is a quality guarantee. However, it doesn't mention any potential errors, pagination, or side effects. Given the simplicity of a no-parameter tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Get GQ sections.'), followed by a clarifying detail about the output. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately 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 zero-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It states what is returned (slugs), their purpose (for headlines endpoint), and a quality attribute (verified live stories). It doesn't mention things like sorting or whether the output is a list, but these are minor and not essential for invoking the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the guidelines, a baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description need not compensate for parameter documentation. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it correctly avoids doing so.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'GQ sections', and adds detail that it returns slugs accepted by the headlines endpoint, each verified to list live stories. This clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling sections tools for other publications, but the name and GQ-specific context make the purpose unambiguous.

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 a usage scenario: you'd call this tool to obtain valid section slugs before using the headlines endpoint. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, name sibling tools, or provide exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it falls short of a 4.

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