stuff_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful traits: 'fresh' implies current/uncached data, and 'public' implies no authentication. It clearly reads as a read-only operation. However, it discloses nothing about response shape, pagination, or rate limits, which leaves meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Exactly two sentences with zero redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds the freshness and single-feed scoping without repeating the name. Every word 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?

The tool is low-complexity: one required parameter fully constrained by an enum, so the schema eliminates parameter error risk. The description explains what is returned (headlines) and from where (a public section feed). Output format is not described, but no output schema exists and a headlines list is reasonably inferable; this is adequate for a simple scraper.

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 schema already documents 'section' as a 'Stuff section slug' and constrains it with a 34-value enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond linking 'section' to the section feed concept, so the baseline 3 applies.

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') with a precise resource ('Stuff section headlines') and scopes it to one public section feed. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like stuff_article and stuff_sections by naming both the publication and the headline type, though it never explicitly names a sibling to distinguish itself from.

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?

Usage context is implied by the phrase 'from one public section feed' — an agent can infer the tool fetches headlines for a Stuff section, and the required 'section' param reinforces this. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like stuff_news, nzherald_headlines, or the many other publication headline tools in the sibling list.

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