hollywoodreporter_headlines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool 'returns fresh headlines', which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but discloses nothing else about behavior (e.g., pagination, limits, or output structure). For a simple retrieval tool this is adequate, but it lacks any caveats or additional behavioral context.

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 concise sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence clarifies the scope. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately sized and 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what it returns (headlines) and from what (a section). It does not describe the format of the headlines or how to handle invalid sections, but the enum and parameter description in the schema cover the input side. The lack of an output schema is notable but not critical for a headline fetcher.

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 input schema already provides a description for the single parameter 'section' (Hollywood Reporter section slug) and an enum of valid values, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no further detail about the parameter beyond referencing 'section or editorial-vertical feed', which is already implied by the enum. Baseline of 3 applies because 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 clearly states the tool retrieves The Hollywood Reporter section headlines, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'section headlines'. It is explicit about the scope ('fresh headlines from one public The Hollywood Reporter section or editorial-vertical feed'), but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like hollywoodreporter_news or hollywoodreporter_sections, so differentiation relies on the word 'section'.

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 usage by requiring a 'section' slug, but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over related tools (e.g., hollywoodreporter_news for general news, or hollywoodreporter_sections to discover valid sections). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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