nationafrica_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral details: results are 'current story teasers,' subscriber-only stories are marked with type 'premium,' and teasers show only relative age so published_at is omitted. This goes beyond the tool name and gives an agent expectations about output content and limitations, though it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or errors.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and scope, the second highlights the premium story marker, and the third explains why published_at is absent. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 single-parameter tool, the description is largely complete: it defines the return type (story teasers), the resource scope (one public section page), a data nuance (premium type), and a field omission (published_at). It does not detail the exact result fields or pagination, but the schema's enum plus these notes cover most of what an agent needs.

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, is fully documented with an enum of valid Nation Africa section slugs and a description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3.

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 and resource: 'Get Nation Africa section headlines' and clarifies it returns 'the current story teasers of one public Nation Africa section page.' It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like nationafrica_article, nationafrica_sections, and nationafrica_author by focusing on headlines rather than article bodies or section lists.

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 intended use is clear from the description: to fetch headlines for a specific Nation Africa section. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as nationafrica_article for full stories or nationafrica_sections for section metadata. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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