nzherald_sections

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 only states that it returns the inventory without describing the output structure, pagination, or any side effects. It does not confirm it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any authentication or rate-limit considerations. For a simple list tool this is a notable gap.

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 short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the action and adds a contextual note about the headlines endpoint. Every word serves a purpose, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 tool that returns a list, the description is mostly adequate but could be more complete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., array of objects with id and name) or any limitations. Since there is no output schema, the description is the only source for understanding the response, and 'section inventory' is vague. It covers the core purpose but lacks detail on what exactly is returned.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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's purpose: it gets NZ Herald sections and returns the section inventory used by the headlines endpoint. It identifies the specific resource (NZ Herald sections) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nzherald_headlines and nzherald_article by specifying its role in the headlines workflow.

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 usage context by mentioning it returns the section inventory used by the headlines endpoint, suggesting it should be called to obtain section IDs before requesting headlines. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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