guardian_headlines

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that headlines are fresh and from a public source, but doesn't specify the return structure, whether it's a list, or any limitations (e.g., number of headlines). This is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 concise sentences with no redundant phrasing. The purpose is front-loaded, and the default is clearly stated. It is appropriately minimal for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the basic action and default, but omits any description of the response format or any additional behavior. It's adequate but not thorough.

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 only parameter 'section' is fully documented in the schema with the same default information. The description adds no additional meaning, such as examples of valid section values or behavior when omitted. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 applies.

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 action (get), resource (Guardian section headlines), and source (public Guardian RSS). It implies the tool is for headlines rather than full articles, which distinguishes it from guardian_article and guardian_topic, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling news tools like bbc_headlines or cnn_headlines. The only contextual note is the default section, which is about parameter behavior, not usage selection.

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