scmp_headlines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently specifies the output contract: each story's title, canonical URL, summary, byline, publication time, and lead image. It doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or behavior for empty/invalid sections, but for a simple read-only listing tool the disclosed response shape is reasonably complete.

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 is front-loaded, followed by the output contract and the input constraint. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating all returned fields and linking to the sections endpoint for valid slugs. It could add pagination or ordering details, but nothing essential for correctly invoking the tool is missing.

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%, and the enum of accepted section slugs is fully spelled out in the input schema, so the schema already documents the single parameter well. The description adds little beyond restating that the value must be a slug from /scmp/sections, which warrants the baseline score of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the latest stories in an SCMP section') and enumerates the exact returned fields (title, canonical URL, summary, byline, publication time, lead image), making the tool's function unmistakable. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like scmp_article and scmp_author by framing the output as a section listing and referencing '/scmp/sections' as the slug source.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Section must be a slug returned by /scmp/sections,' which prevents invalid calls and routes the agent to the correct sibling tool for valid slugs. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over scmp_article or scmp_author, but the 'current article listing' framing makes the intended use evident.

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