ndtv_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that results are 'current story cards' from a single section page and that fields like summary, byline, and image appear only where the section shows them. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or response shape beyond the field list, but the read-only nature is reasonably clear from 'Returns.'

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?

Two succinct sentences with no filler: the first states the action and resource, the second enumerates the returned fields and their conditional nature. It avoids repeating the schema enum values or adding unnecessary context.

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 one-parameter headlines tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the input, the page scope, and the returned fields. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but those are minor gaps for this simple read-only use case.

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%, so the description does not need to add much parameter detail. It confirms that the section parameter selects one NDTV section page and aligns with the 'ndtv-sections' slug reference in the schema. It adds no format or selection guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get NDTV section headlines,' and names the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes the tool as a section-headlines fetcher, though it does not explicitly call out sibling alternatives like ndtv_news.

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 the tool is for fetching headlines from one NDTV section page, and that the section parameter is the sole selector. However, it never states when to prefer this over related tools such as ndtv_article, ndtv_news, or other headline tools, and gives no exclusions.

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