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

The annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'list' wording matches this. It does not add much behavioral detail beyond the annotations, but there is no contradiction.

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 first sentence is concise, but the appended 'Guidance: ... | context: type' is redundant and awkwardly repeats the same information. This hurts the overall structure and focus.

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 listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the scope, mentions content and non-content sections, and points to the more specific CMS section tool, giving enough context for an agent to select it.

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 parameter schema already covers the 'type' parameter thoroughly with common values and the distinction from cms_list_cms_sections. The description only adds 'by section type', so it contributes little beyond the existing schema coverage.

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 lists the generic app section catalog by type, including content and non-content sections. It also distinguishes itself from cms_list_cms_sections by using the word 'generic' and referencing CMS-only alternatives.

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 and parameter guidance indicate when to use this tool versus cms_list_cms_sections, especially through the parameter description instructing to prefer cms_list_cms_sections for CMS-only sections. The main description could be more explicit but still gives useful direction.

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