kotaku_headlines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the data source is a public RSS feed and that results are 'fresh' headlines, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose output item structure, limits, pagination, or what 'fresh' means, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and the source detail in the second. It contains slight redundancy ('headlines' and 'Kotaku section' appear twice), but every sentence adds useful information, so it remains efficient.

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 low-complexity tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the source type (public RSS feed), and the return value (fresh headlines). It does not spell out exact headline item fields or failure behavior, but an agent can invoke it correctly with the information provided.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'section' has an enum of valid slugs and a one-line description. The tool description adds little beyond restating that the feed is for one section, so it neither needs to compensate for missing schema info nor adds meaningful new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Kotaku section headlines'), and a precise scope ('one Kotaku section'). This clearly distinguishes it from cross-section or other-publication headline tools and from the sibling kotaku_sections, which likely lists sections rather than their headlines.

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 phrase 'from one Kotaku section's public RSS feed' implies when to use this tool: when a caller needs headlines filtered to a specific Kotaku section. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like kotaku_sections or kotaku_article, nor does it state when not to use this tool, leaving routing to inference.

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