tmz_sections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a limitation of TMZ's taxonomy (no broader stable editorial categories), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, does not describe the return format or any side effects, and lacks details about authentication or rate limits. This is acceptable for a lightweight retrieval but not fully transparent.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence contributes: the first states the function, the second gives the specific return values, and the third adds context and a pointer to a related tool. No wasted words.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is complete enough: it states what it returns, the accepted values, and points to tmz-headlines for further context. It lacks an explicit statement of the response structure (e.g., array of strings), but the simplicity makes this inferable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds significant value by enumerating the exact sections returned (News and Sports), which is not in the schema. It also clarifies the relationship to tmz-headlines, effectively defining the output semantics beyond what an empty schema could.

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 states a specific action ('Get TMZ sections') and specifies what it returns: the section inventory accepted by tmz-headlines, listing the exact sections (News and Sports). It is clear and distinct from other publisher section tools by focusing on TMZ's specific inventory.

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?

It explains that the returned inventory is what tmz-headlines accepts and directs the agent to tmz-headlines for details, providing a clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple tool.

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