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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral details: the conditional return shape, next free id, section editability, default units, and the write-back path. It does not specify error behavior for invalid ids or pagination, but it adds substantial context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the two usage modes and uses compact, information-dense phrasing. Every clause earns its place by specifying behavior, return content, units, or the follow-up write tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what is returned in both list and detail modes, including fields, outline format, units, and stored properties. The detail-mode properties are not itemized, but the cross-reference to section_preview and section_write makes the definition usable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clearly explains that id toggles between listing sections and retrieving a drawn section, and it explains units as the output coordinate units with a default of mm, though it does not explicitly say units is irrelevant when no id is supplied.

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 states specific verb/resource behavior: without id it lists sections with fields and next free id, with id it returns a drawn section as outlines plus stored properties. It also distinguishes the read operation from the write path by naming section_write for editing.

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 clearly explains the id vs no-id usage modes and names section_write as the alternative for editing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from section_properties or section_preview beyond referencing section_preview's input format.

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