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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description's useful addition is that it returns the *complete text* of a section — relevant since there is no output schema — but it says nothing about behavior on invalid/ambiguous section names or how partial matches resolve.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with the core claim up front, which is good. However, the long parenthetical enumeration of six section names is redundant with the parameter schema and dilutes the one sentence it has.

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 usefully states that the full section text is returned, and the schema enumerates valid section identifiers, so an agent can call it correctly. The remaining hole is error/fallback behavior for unknown sections, which is minor for a simple read tool.

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 100% and the parameter description already enumerates the canonical sections plus common aliases. The description's parenthetical list of section names largely duplicates that, so it adds no syntax, matching, or fallback semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is warranted.

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 and resource ('Returns the complete text of a specific section from the site's knowledge base'), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like 'ask' or 'get-investigation-links', which is the only gap.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to fetch a known section by name. There is no statement of when to prefer this over 'ask' (e.g. free-form questions) or over 'get-investigation-links', and no guidance on what happens with an unrecognized section name.

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