iol_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 transparently lists the contents of the inventory (including sub-sections and sister-title feeds), but it does not describe the response format, whether it is a simple list or nested structure, or any other behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling. The description is informative 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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action ('Get IOL sections') and then provides the necessary detail about the returned inventory. There is no unnecessary redundancy or fluff.

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 tool, the description is nearly complete. It specifies what data will be returned, including the key sections and additional sub-sections/provincial/sister-title feeds. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit return format, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, this is acceptable.

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 there is no parameter information for the description to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not waste space on parameter details.

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's function: retrieving the IOL section inventory. It specifies the exact sections (news, sport, business, etc.) and emphasizes that these are the verified sections accepted by the headlines endpoint, making it distinguishable from other news section tools for different outlets.

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 implicitly conveys usage by mentioning that the returned sections are accepted by the headlines endpoint, suggesting this tool is a prerequisite for the headlines tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus other section tools or provide direct guidance on alternative tools.

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