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

Annotations already cover the readOnly/idempotent/closed-world safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: the payload contains component code and a motion spec, and Pro sections are gated behind a plan. It does not say what happens when the caller lacks a Pro plan (error vs. partial), leaving a small gap.

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, zero padding, with the substantive 'what you get back' clause front-loaded ahead of the plan constraint.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content and one access restriction. The only omission is behavior on insufficient plan/unknown id, which is minor for a read 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its provenance from list_sections or search_sections. The description adds only that a section is 'one' item, so baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (one StudioMotion section) and goes further by stating exactly what is returned: React + Framer Motion + Tailwind component code plus a motion spec. This is distinguishable from listing/searching siblings that only return metadata.

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?

States a prerequisite ('Pro sections require an active Pro plan') but never says when to reach for this tool versus list_sections or search_sections, which are the natural discovery siblings. Usage is implied by the required id rather than explained.

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