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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the grouping-by-section behavior, which is genuine context beyond the annotation. It says nothing about pagination despite a cursor parameter, nor about what the grouping structure or default locale behavior looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the section-scoping behavior is placed where it is read first. Slightly terse given the tool's unaddressed paging and locale semantics, but structurally clean.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with three parameters of which two are undocumented in the schema and unmentioned in the description, the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 33% (only cursor is documented). The description partially compensates by explaining that 'section' narrows the result set, but it says nothing about locale or how cursor paging interacts with the grouped output.

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 ('List documentation pages') plus a distinguishing behavior ('grouped by section'). However, it never differentiates itself from siblings like list_pages or list_page_sections, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 phrase 'optionally narrowed to one section' hints at how the section filter works, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over list_pages, list_page_sections, or search_docs, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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