get_top_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. It mentions that parameters default to config values, which is useful context, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination. For a tool fetching external data, this omission is significant.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information. 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well and the output schema handles return values, but it lacks behavioral context (e.g., rate limits) and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for effective agent operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'language' and 'country' with examples (e.g., 'en', 'US') and noting defaults ('from config'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible nuances like format constraints.

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's purpose: 'Get top headlines for a country.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('top headlines'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_category_feed or get_search_feed by focusing on headlines rather than categories or search results. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_geo_feed, which might be similar.

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. It mentions 'for a country' but doesn't explain when to choose this over siblings like get_category_feed or get_topic_feed, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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