guardian_headlines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fresh' and 'public', which implies a non-destructive read operation and no authentication, but it does not disclose any other traits such as response format, pagination, rate limits, or error behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a minimal 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 no unnecessary words. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, followed by a brief clarifier about the source and default. 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 single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential aspects: what it returns (headlines), the source (public Guardian RSS), and the default section. It does not describe the output structure, but for a headlines list this is acceptable and not a critical gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already provides a complete description of the 'section' parameter including enum values and the default. The description repeats the default ('section defaults to world') but does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not elevate it.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Guardian section headlines', specifying the source as a public Guardian RSS section. This distinguishes it from other news headline tools like nyt_headlines or bbc_headlines, and the tool name reinforces the purpose. It is unambiguous and specific.

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 indicates the tool is for Guardian section headlines and mentions the default section, which provides context for usage. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools (e.g., guardian_article, guardian_topic) or state when not to use it. The sourcing from a public RSS feed is implied but no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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