rappler_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 does disclose that the feed is “public” (suggesting no auth) and “fresh” (implying current data), which is useful. But it omits details about response size, pagination, rate limits, or what exactly a headline object contains, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no output schema.

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 filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds the freshness and public-feed context. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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 read tool with an exhaustive enum in the schema, the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, that the data is fresh/public, and which parameter to supply. The main gap is that it does not describe the output structure (e.g., fields in each headline), but given the tool’s simplicity and the name “headlines,” this is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 100%: the `section` parameter has a description (“Rappler section slug”) and a full enum of valid slugs. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming the tool selects from “one public Rappler section feed,” which is already implied by the parameter and 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 clearly states “Get Rappler section headlines,” a specific verb + resource, and further clarifies it returns “fresh headlines from one public Rappler section feed.” This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like rappler_article, rappler_author, or rappler_sections, since it is the only one focused on per-section headline feeds.

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: call it when you need headlines for a specific Rappler section, and the required `section` parameter supports that. However, it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of alternative tools like rappler_sections for listing sections or rappler_article for full content, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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