irishtimes_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. It mentions 'fresh headlines' (time-sensitivity) and 'public' (accessibility), but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or error behavior for invalid sections. The description adds only minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious 'Get' action. There is no contradiction, but it is thin on behavioral details.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. There is zero filler; every word contributes. It is an example of efficient, well-structured prose that an agent can parse quickly.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential elements: it retrieves headlines, they are fresh, and it requires a section from a public set. It does not mention that the section is required (though that is in the schema) or describe the return format, but these are not critical for a headlines fetcher. It is adequately complete for 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 input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'section' parameter is described as 'Irish Times section slug' and includes an enum of 16 valid values). The tool description does not add further meaning, such as examples or formatting notes, beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, a high coverage yields a baseline of 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 'Irish Times section headlines,' and specifies it returns 'fresh headlines from one public Irish Times section.' This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like irishtimes_article (for full articles) and irishtimes_sections (for listing sections). The purpose 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 implies usage when you need headlines from a specific Irish Times section, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as irishtimes_news (general news) or irishtimes_sections (to discover available sections). There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the name and description. It is not misleading, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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