phonearena_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral quirks: titles for news-month and reviews are reconstructed from hero-image file names, and published_at is the listing's last-modified time. This is valuable context beyond the schema, warning the agent about data quality and provenance. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but the key caveats are 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then the caveat. It is concise and every sentence earns its place. The caveat about title reconstruction and published_at is important and placed after the core statement, which is a reasonable structure.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and the key data-quality caveats. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., fields beyond title and published_at), whether results are sorted, or any pagination behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but with a clear gap around output structure.

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' has an enum and a description ('PhoneArena listing slug'). The description adds the meaning of the three enum values (news, news-month, reviews) by explaining that news-month and reviews have reconstructed titles, but it doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 gets PhoneArena section headlines, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PhoneArena section headlines'). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the source (PhoneArena) and the three section types, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The mention of 'stories or reviews' and the section enum adds clarity.

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 by listing the three section options and noting the tool returns headlines from 'one public listing'. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like phonearena_article or phonearena_news, but the section parameter and the phrase 'from one public listing' give some context. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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