vanguardng_headlines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'Returns fresh headlines' but does not disclose the return format, pagination, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, freshness guarantees). For a data-fetching tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise, with one sentence and a second clarifying phrase. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and there is no fluff. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description is somewhat adequate but incomplete. It does not describe what the returned headlines look like, how to interpret the data, or any error handling. For an agent to use this tool effectively, it needs to know the response structure, which is not covered. The description is missing this crucial 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 covers 100% of parameters, with a description for the 'section' parameter. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'section feed' but does not clarify the format of section slugs or provide examples beyond the enum. Since the schema already documents the parameter, a 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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Vanguard section headlines'), and distinguishes itself by mentioning 'one public Vanguard section feed' which helps differentiate from other news headline tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vanguardng_article, vanguardng_news, or vanguardng_sections, so it's not fully differentiated.

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 for fetching headlines from a section feed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vanguardng_article or vanguardng_news. It provides context (section feed) but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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