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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds context that the returned content is 'current knowledge on a topic' and describes the granularity as one shelf/section, but it does not address error behavior, missing sections, or other side effects. Given the read-only annotation and output schema, this is adequate but not rich.

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 exactly two sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose and content type, the second gives usage instructions. Every word contributes, and there is no redundant or filler information.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what a section is, what content it returns, and how the agent should obtain valid section names. Minor ambiguity remains about the exact format of `section` (whether it is a slug, title, or ID), but the examples reduce this risk.

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 0%, and the description partially compensates by explaining that `section` is a named topic such as «Решения» or «Грабли», giving the agent examples of valid values. `project_id` receives no additional explanation, but its meaning is conventional and its schema type (integer) is likely clear enough.

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 identifies the tool as returning a single section (article) of the project map with current knowledge on a topic, giving concrete examples like «Решения» and «Грабли». It references get_project_context and get_project_map, which helps distinguish it from broader tools, though the action verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated in the description.

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 explicitly tells the agent to call this tool by table-of-contents entries obtained from get_project_context or get_project_map, establishing a clear usage workflow. It does not state exclusions or when to prefer alternative tools like search_project, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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