nzherald_headlines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'public' and 'section headlines', but does not disclose potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or that some sections may not have headlines. It also does not explain what happens if a section is invalid or empty. The description adds some context ('public') but not enough to be fully transparent.

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 waste, and the key action and resource are front-loaded. It is concise and efficient, although it could include a brief usage note without becoming verbose.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It does not mention return format, freshness meaning, or handling of unavailable sections. The single parameter is well-documented, but the tool lacks sufficient context for an agent to fully understand its behavior and outputs, especially since there are many sibling tools with similar patterns.

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 schema already documents the single parameter ('section' as a slug). The description adds the term 'section' but does not provide extra meaning beyond what the schema offers. Since there is only one parameter and it is fully described, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('NZ Herald section headlines'), and clarifies it returns fresh headlines from one public section. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like nyt_headlines or nzherald_news, though the presence of sibling nzherald_news implies a potential overlap that is not addressed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that nzherald_news might be for general news, or that this tool is specifically for headlines by section. There is no when/when-not guidance, and the sibling list includes nzherald_news and nzherald_sections, which could confuse an agent without explicit direction.

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