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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns HTML fragments and fails for invalid or absent section keys, which is helpful. However, it omits details about the structure of the HTML fragments, auth requirements, idempotency, or error types, leaving the agent partially informed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the valid keys and failure condition, each earning its place. This is a model of concise, structured description.

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 2-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the return format, valid inputs, and failure behavior. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling report tools, but the schema's report_id description covers the remaining essential 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 already describes report_id and provides an enum for section, so the description adds limited new semantic value. It repeats the valid section keys and adds the 'absent from the report' failure context, but it does not explain what each section key means. Since schema coverage is 50%, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 identifies the tool's output: 'One section of a published report as HTML fragments.' The resource is specific (a report section) and the valid section keys add precision. It is distinguishable from sibling report tools like get_report and get_report_html by the 'one section' qualifier, though it never states that contrast explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_report or get_report_html. The failure condition ('Fails if the key is outside this key's scope or absent from the report') is useful but does not tell the agent when to use the tool or how to obtain a valid report_id, beyond what the schema already states.

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