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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: section is a case-insensitive prefix match on a heading. It does not cover edge cases like a missing section match or the exact return format, but the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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 short and front-loaded with the core behavior, then gives the section usage. Its main flaw is repeating the full id enum that is already present in the schema, which adds minor redundancy but does not seriously hurt usability.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters, the description covers the main choices: which document and optional section. It lacks an explicit statement of the return format, but 'return one document in full' is sufficient for most agents, especially with the strong annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the section parameter's matching behavior and when to use it, which is not fully specified in the schema.

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 verb and resource: it returns one document in full or a single section. The explicit id list and the contrast with listing/searching make the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear within-tool guidance: use the section parameter when the whole document is more than needed. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_docs or search_docs for when to use those instead, but the retrieval intent is obvious from the first sentence.

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