rte_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. It states the tool returns the public section inventory, which is a behavioral disclosure, but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or any potential error conditions. For a simple GET-like tool, this is adequate but not rich. It does not contradict anything, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a clarifying note about its relation to headlines. There is no wasted text; every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless tool that returns a section inventory, the description explains what it does and its relationship to the headlines endpoint. It does not describe the return format or any edge cases, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers everything. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist. No additional meaning is needed.

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 retrieves RTÉ News sections and specifies the resource (RTÉ News) and the action (Get). It also ties it to the headlines endpoint, which distinguishes its role from other section tools. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context: it returns the public section inventory used by the headlines endpoint, implying this should be used when needing the list of RTÉ sections, likely as a precursor to headlines. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to call it.

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