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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the description's job is to add non-obvious behavior — which it does by disclosing that a failed match degrades to listing the sections rather than erroring. It stops short of describing how exact or fuzzy heading matching is, which matters for a lookup-by-string tool.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first establishes what is returned and the lookup key, the second front-loads the fallback case. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is nearly complete — the only meaningful omission is how ambiguous or partial heading matches are resolved. No output schema exists, so not describing return shape is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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%, so the heading parameter's meaning and examples are already documented in the schema. The description only repeats that a number or heading string is accepted, adding no matching rules or disambiguation behavior beyond it.

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 resource and retrieval mode: 'One section of the integration guide, by heading or number,' which is unambiguous about what is returned. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_error or get_operation by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with search_docs.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'by heading or number' phrasing and the examples, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_docs or list-style siblings. The no-match fallback is the only real routing guidance offered.

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