nyt_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (RSS feed with specific fields: title, URL, description, author, time, image), which is more than most descriptions. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', and while it doesn't mention side effects or rate limits, none are likely. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second provides necessary return details and a constraint. 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the exact return fields, and a constraint on the input. It doesn't mention pagination or limits, but for a simple headlines list this is likely unnecessary. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

The schema already describes the parameter ('Section slug from /nyt/sections') with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the constraint but adds no new semantic detail beyond reinforcing the source of valid slugs. It does not add examples or format specifications.

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 the latest stories'), the resource ('a New York Times section'), and what is returned (an RSS feed with specific fields). It also distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the NYT publisher and requiring a section slug from /nyt/sections, making it 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?

It clearly indicates the prerequisite that the section must be a slug from /nyt/sections, which guides the agent on valid input. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the context of sibling tools (all other publishers) implies this is for NYT-specific use, and the instruction is sufficient for correct invocation.

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