salon_headlines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context: 'fresh' implies recency of data, and 'public' implies no authentication is needed. It does not disclose pagination behavior, output format, rate limits, or failure modes for invalid inputs, so the transparency is partial but reasonable for a simple read-only RSS headline tool.

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 totaling roughly a dozen words, with the verb and object front-loaded in the first sentence and the scoping qualifiers ('fresh', 'public', 'RSS section') earning their place in the second. No wasted words or redundant restatements of the schema.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it returns ('fresh headlines'), the source ('public Salon RSS section'), and which parameter matters (section). The main omission is the exact return shape (plain strings vs. objects), but the phrase 'Returns fresh headlines' provides sufficient expectation-setting for a headline fetcher.

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 'section' parameter is described as 'Salon RSS section slug' with a full enum), so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'one public Salon RSS section' mildly reinforces that a single section slug is expected, adding marginal clarity but not meaningfully extending what the schema already conveys.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Salon section headlines'), and further specifies scope with 'from one public Salon RSS section.' It is clear and distinguishable from salon_article and salon_author because the focus is on headlines, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings. It avoids tautology by adding meaningful details (RSS, public, section) beyond the tool name.

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 when to use the tool: when the agent needs fresh Salon headlines from a single RSS section. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or aliasing to alternatives such as salon_news or salon_article for full articles, so an agent must infer the boundary between this and related Salon tools.

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