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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful structural context (silently caps output at max_chars, lists every heading), but says nothing about truncation signaling, auth, or rate limits. Adequate against a lower annotated bar, 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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the core retrieval behavior is front-loaded and the prerequisite (find the slug first) is placed last as a distinct actionable clause.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies the one thing structured fields can't: the discovery workflow for obtaining the required slug. Slight gap only in not signaling how truncation is surfaced to the caller.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter is already documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only light framing ('send section for one part', 'max_chars to cap the length') that mirrors what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific resource (a paper's published text with headings) and scope, and routes the agent away from search_research/list_topics, which only find the slug. An agent can distinguish this retrieval tool from its siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names prerequisites and alternatives: get the slug from search_research or list_topics first, and use section for a single part vs. the whole text. Nothing about when to reach for this tool is left implicit.

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