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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the return fields and the edge case that a node without ``##`` headings yields no sections. It stops short of describing pagination, ordering, or what an empty result looks like, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the exclusion and the edge case. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, return fields, the sibling alternative, and the empty-sections case. The only material omission is the `address` format, which is the one thing an agent must get right to call it.

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 single `address` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never defines its format or how it relates to the `<address>` shown in the `hydrate` example. The reader can infer it identifies a node, but the concrete syntax remains undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (a node's sections) and enumerates the returned fields (slug, title, path, tokens), which makes the tool's output shape immediately legible. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `hydrate`, so an agent can separate the two without opening a schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use rule ("before reading only the part you need") and an explicit when-not rule ("Not for reading the text: ``hydrate`` ``<address>?section=<slug>`` does that"), naming the alternative and its calling convention. Nothing about routing 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.