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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return contents (decoded spec, image_url, design tokens), mentions that deep-decoded products include measured states, and explains the fallback behavior when the section is not found. It could be more explicit about read-only semantics, but the 'Get' verb and 'Returns' phrasing imply safety.

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 concise: three sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, then uses an example, then adds a useful detail about measured data, and ends with the fallback behavior. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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?

Given the simple 2-parameter schema, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, return contents, fallback, and example. It could be more explicit about parameter formats or output shape, but the provided information is sufficient for a getter 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It provides an example (site='Linear', section_type='Pricing / Plans') and implies site is a product name and section_type is a section label. However, it doesn't define the exact format or valid values for either parameter, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 states the tool gets one product's specific section fully specified, including decoded spec, reference image_url, and parent product's design tokens. It uses a specific verb ('Get') with a concrete resource and even includes an example, distinguishing it from siblings like get_screen_sections or get_component.

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?

The description explicitly gives the intended use case: "Use this for 'build a <section> like <product>'", with a concrete example call. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the use case is clear enough for selection.

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