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

Annotations already cover the key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description does not contradict them—'List' is consistent with read-only semantics. The description adds minor context (app-scoped, by content type) but no significant behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, but the second sentence largely repeats the first ('List CMS content sections... by CMS content type' vs. the enum in sentence one), with only 'for the current app' as genuinely new information. The trailing '| context: type' fragment is also awkwardly formatted.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core operation, but it leaves ambiguity around what 'sections and categories' separately mean and does not clarify how this tool relates to the nearly identical sibling cms_list_sections. These gaps prevent a higher completeness score.

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% with the 'type' parameter already described as 'CMS content type to discover' plus a full enum. The description reinforces the parameter role ('by CMS content type') but adds no new meaning, such as what each enum value returns or how the result differs by type, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('CMS content sections and categories'), and scopes it by content types (article, maps, video, photo, agenda, sound). This implicitly distinguishes it from the plain cms_list_sections sibling, though the distinction is not explicit and 'sections and categories' is slightly ambiguous.

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 guidance sentence ('List CMS content sections for the current app by CMS content type') provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you need sections filtered by a specific content type, scoped to the current app. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like cms_list_sections or the per-type cms_list_* tools.

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