tmz_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns fresh headlines from a public hub page, without detailing the return format, pagination, error handling, or any potential side effects. This is minimal for a read operation and leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 exceptionally concise, using only two short sentences to convey the essential purpose. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning without fluff. This is a model of efficient tool documentation.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not specify what the returned headlines look like (e.g., list of strings, objects with titles/links), nor does it mention any limitations or error conditions. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more detail about the expected response and usage context.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'section' parameter, including its type and enum values. The description adds little beyond restating that headlines come from a section; it does not clarify the meaning of 'fresh' or how the section slug maps to the enum. Since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('TMZ section headlines'), and clarifies that it returns fresh headlines from a section's public hub page. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic headline tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tmz_news or tmz_article, which might overlap in 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 implies usage when needing headlines for a TMZ section, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like tmz_article for full articles or tmz_sections to list available sections. There is no exclusion or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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