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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose result behavior: sections are grouped by document with 'best document first,' and small documents come back whole. It does not mention result limits, pagination, or how broad a 'plan' match can be, which is the remaining gap for a search tool.

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 core instruction is front-loaded and every sentence is actionable. The re-emphasis that you must call again 'even if you already called it earlier in this conversation' is slightly repetitive, though arguably deliberate reinforcement for a tool that must not be called once-per-conversation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still adds ranking context. With one required parameter, no annotations, and no nesting, the description covers invocation timing, input construction, and result shape — nothing needed 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 0% for the single 'plan' parameter, and the description fully compensates: it explains what to write (your plan plus the guidance you need), gives three concrete example strings, warns against pasting the user's question verbatim, and instructs naming the product/system/identifier.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Find instruction sections') and immediately narrows scope with 'relevant to what you are ABOUT TO DO.' The search-by-relevance framing is inherently distinguishable from the get-by-id / get-structure siblings get_section and get_toc.

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?

It is explicit about when to call ('before EVERY new topic, system, or data source'), when to re-call ('if the user's question shifts to a different system, product or task'), and gives concrete transition examples (refunds to account closures). This is textbook when/when-again guidance for a retrieval tool.

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