newscomau_headlines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fresh headlines', indicating recency, and clarifies that it operates on a single section. However, it doesn't disclose potential pagination, error behavior on invalid slugs, return format, or any rate limits. For a read-only tool this is adequate but not exhaustive, hence a 3.

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 brief (three short sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy. It efficiently conveys purpose, parameter source, and examples.

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, the description covers the essential usage: what it does, where the parameter comes from, and examples. It doesn't describe the output structure, but given the output is just headlines and no output schema exists, this is a minor omission. The reference to the sections endpoint is a helpful completeness touch.

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 description covers the parameter ('News.com.au section slug, from GET /newscomau/sections'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples ('national', 'national/nsw-act/politics') and clarifying the nested slug format, which goes beyond the schema. This enhancement justifies a 4.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('News.com.au section headlines'). It specifies that it returns headlines from a single section or category page, which distinguishes it from related siblings like newscomau_article (article fetch) or newscomau_sections (list of sections). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains that the `section` parameter must be a slug obtained from GET /newscomau/sections, providing a clear prerequisite and referencing the endpoint for valid values. It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., when to use newscomau_article instead), but the context implies when to use this tool. A minor gap is the lack of explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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