newyorker_sections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (slug, display name, feed URL) and the scope (complete set of public text-article feeds, excluding non-text feeds). It does not mention pagination, error behavior, or rate limits, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable and provides adequate transparency.

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 filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds the output fields and exclusions. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys the return structure (slug, display name, feed URL) and the exact scope (complete set of text-article feeds, excluding others). There is no missing information an agent would need to call this tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description needs no parameter explanations, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 tool lists The New Yorker sections, specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'sections', and differentiates from the headlines endpoint by noting it provides the set of sections accepted there. It also names the output fields (slug, display name, feed URL), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like newyorker_headlines.

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 this tool is the reference list for the headlines endpoint, which helps an agent know when to use it (e.g., before calling newyorker_headlines). It also clarifies exclusions (cartoon, podcast, video, puzzle feeds), which guides the agent away from inappropriate use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state a 'when not to use' condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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