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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: results come back in site order, the response carries a list of sections, and section matching is case-insensitive. Pagination/limit behavior is left entirely to the 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?

Tight, three-sentence description with no filler, and the return shape is front-loaded so the agent learns what it gets immediately. The 'use it for' guidance arrives slightly late and could have led, but nothing is redundant.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, annotations covering safety and full schema documentation, this covers what the agent still needs: content of each entry, ordering, the sections companion list, and the filtering rule. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description still adds real meaning by stating that `section` must be one of the returned `sections` and is matched without regard to case, which is not obvious from the schema's 'A section name from `sections`' wording.

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?

Starts with a concrete verb-plus-resource framing ('The public documentation's table of contents') and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (section, title, path, URL, one-line description), plus the ordering. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read_page by positioning itself as the discovery step that precedes it.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'find the right page before read_page' and 'see what the documentation covers', naming the sibling it feeds into. It does not state when to prefer search_docs or search_published_knowledge instead, so routing among the other siblings is left to inference.

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