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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns content from the matched header to the next same-level header, includes file path and line range, and indicates that data comes from bundled documentation. It also implicitly discloses that the header must be found, as suggested by the follow-up instruction. While it doesn't explicitly state the behavior when a header is not found, the guidance covers it sufficiently.

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, front-loaded with the primary use case, and every sentence earns its place. It includes the purpose, return behavior, follow-up instructions, and data source in just three sentences without redundant information. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity, full schema coverage, and helpful annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, what to do if the header isn't found, and where the data comes from. No output schema exists, but the description already conveys the return format. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (path, header, include_children). The description adds some context around the 'header' parameter by referencing "child header" for narrower subsections, but it does not meaningfully enhance the schema's explanations. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: "reading a specific named section from a Pine Script v6 documentation file." It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing that it reads a named section, contrasting with tools like list_sections or search_docs. The return behavior is also specified (content from matched header to next same-level header, with file path and line range), making the 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?

The description opens with "USE WHEN" to explicitly indicate the appropriate condition for using this tool. It also provides follow-up guidance: call list_sections(path) if the header is not found, or call get_section() again with a child header for a narrower subsection. This gives clear direction on when to use the tool and what to do afterward, effectively differentiating from alternatives.

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