marketwatch_headlines

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns 'fresh headlines', but does not describe pagination, rate limits, error behavior, or the structure of the response. It also does not clarify whether 'fresh' implies any recency guarantee or if headlines are sorted by time. This is minimal disclosure for an operation.

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 sentences, with the core action front-loaded: 'Get MarketWatch section headlines.' The second sentence adds the qualifier about freshness and public sections. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it optimally concise and well-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 simple tool with one required parameter and an enum, the description and schema together provide enough information for an agent to call it correctly. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the simple nature of the tool; 'Returns fresh headlines' gives a general sense of the output. It does not specify the exact format, but for a headline tool this is likely acceptable. No critical missing information is apparent.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with the parameter description 'MarketWatch section slug' and an enum of valid values. The tool description adds only the context that it is a 'public' section and implies a single section, but does not elaborate on what each slug represents or how to choose among them. Since schema coverage is high, the description adds marginal value, so a 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'MarketWatch section headlines', making it unambiguous what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like marketwatch_news or marketwatch_article by specifying it returns headlines from a section, and the 'public' qualifier adds specificity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or direct users to sibling tools like marketwatch_news for full articles or marketwatch_sections for section lists. The context of when to choose this tool over other headline tools is entirely implied by the name and description.

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