news24_headlines

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior: headlines are 'fresh', come from a 'public section page' (implying no auth), and subscriber-only cards carry type 'subscriber'. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, response format, rate limits, or what happens for invalid sections, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 no fluff. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a concise, valuable behavioral detail about subscriber-type cards. Every word earns its place.

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, the description is mostly adequate: it names the resource, the source (section page), and one return-value nuance (subscriber type). But it doesn't describe the return shape beyond 'headlines' and leaves 'fresh' undefined, so an agent invoking the tool cannot fully anticipate the response structure or edge cases.

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 single 'section' parameter is already described as 'News24 section path' and constrained by a large enum. The description's 'section headlines' and 'from one public section page' only restate that the parameter selects a section, adding no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get News24 section headlines.' It further clarifies the scope with 'Returns fresh News24 headlines from one public section page,' which distinguishes it from article-level or section-list tools even though it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly. It is not a tautology and provides concrete meaning.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as news24_article, news24_news, or news24_sections. The phrase 'from one public section page' implies the tool operates on sections, but it never states when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead. Agents have to infer usage context on their own.

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