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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden but partially meets it by enumerating returned fields (purpose, template, entry rules, status, reviews, entry counts) and clarifying the since-filter. It omits ordering, pagination/limits, and any auth or rate-limit context, leaving the behavioral profile incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the filter instruction. The field enumeration is dense but each item is informative; no filler sentences.

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 one-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the returned fields and the filter semantics. Only ordering/pagination and scope limits are absent, which are minor for this tool's complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'since' parameter is undocumented in the schema, yet the description supplies both the format (ISO time) and the semantics (entries added after it). That is exactly the kind of meaning the schema lacks.

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?

Identifies the resource (sections) and its scope (built or proposed by the colony), which cleanly separates it from siblings like section_add/section_propose/section_review. The listing verb is implied rather than stated, but an agent can infer retrieval of sections from the noun-phrase framing and field enumeration.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives (e.g. graph_changes_since or get_piece). The only usage hint concerns the 'since' parameter, which is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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