torontostar_headlines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are fresh, from one public section page, and include summary, publish time, and image conditionally ('when the page shows them'). This adds some behavioral context, but it fails to clarify error behavior (e.g., invalid section), pagination, or the exact structure of the return, which is significant given no output schema.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the main action ('Get Toronto Star section headlines') and then lists the key return fields. There is no wasted wording, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 description is reasonably complete for a simple headline tool: it states the action, the source (one public section page), and the return fields with conditionality. However, it does not explain what happens if an invalid section is provided, the absence of pagination details, or how this differs from related tools like torontostar_news, which could leave an agent uncertain in edge cases.

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 has 100% coverage with a description for the 'section' parameter ('Toronto Star section path') and a comprehensive enum. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter. Since the schema already explains it adequately, the baseline 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 tool returns Toronto Star section headlines, with a specific resource (section pages) and the type of data (headlines with summary, publish time, image). It is specific enough to distinguish from article or author tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like torontostar_news or torontostar_sections, so it's not a full 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as torontostar_news (which may return all news) or torontostar_sections (which may list sections). It does not state when-not-to-use conditions or mention alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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