phillyinquirer_headlines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are 'fresh' and from 'one public section feed', and that AP wire copy is excluded. It doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or what happens with invalid sections, but for a simple read-only headline fetcher, the key behavioral traits are reasonably covered.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the AP wire exclusion is a useful, concise addition. It earns its place without being 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?

For a simple single-parameter headline tool, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit return format details (e.g., whether it returns headline text, URLs, timestamps) and doesn't mention pagination or limits, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this a minor gap. It's adequate but not rich.

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%: the only parameter, 'section', is described as a 'Philadelphia Inquirer section slug' with an enum of 24 valid values. The description adds that headlines come from 'one public section feed', which aligns with the section parameter, but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 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') and resource ('Philadelphia Inquirer section headlines'), and clarifies it returns headlines from one public section feed. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like phillyinquirer_news or phillyinquirer_sections, but the resource and scope are clear enough to distinguish it from article/author tools.

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: it's for fetching headlines from a specific section feed. It notes that AP wire copy is not included, which is a useful exclusion. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus phillyinquirer_news, phillyinquirer_sections, or other headline tools, nor does it mention alternatives.

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