telegraph_headlines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: 'fresh' indicates recency, and 'public' signals that only publicly accessible sections are covered. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, output format, or any limitations such as pagination or max results. It is adequate for a simple read tool but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences (16 words) with a clear front-loaded action phrase 'Get The Telegraph section headlines.' It avoids redundancy and every word contributes: 'fresh' and 'public' add useful qualifiers. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states that the tool returns headlines from a chosen section. However, it does not specify the exact structure of the returned headlines (e.g., array, titles only, with URLs), nor any limits or error conditions. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent needing to consume the result.

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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter ('section') with a full enum and description 'The Telegraph section slug'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, such as usage examples or default behavior.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'The Telegraph section headlines', and the scope 'from one public The Telegraph section'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like telegraph_article or telegraph_sections, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The tool name itself reinforces the headlines purpose.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. It does not mention that telegraph_article should be used for full articles, or that telegraph_sections should be used to list sections. The only hint is the phrase 'from one public The Telegraph section,' which implies single-section usage, but there is no direct comparison with siblings.

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