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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the output format ('annotated with block markers `<!-- ds:block:N -->`') and the cost/scope tradeoff versus get_report, which is genuinely useful. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or the 404 failure mode (that detail lives in the schema).

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 scope/cost contrast with get_report is front-loaded and the block-marker detail follows. No filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by explaining the returned content's block-marker structure and the cost rationale. It is nearly complete, missing only return-volume/auth notes, but nothing critical for correct invocation is absent.

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 schema already documents both parameters extensively, including the cross-market keyword resolution and 404 retry guidance. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one section of a report'), scopes it with 'by keyword', and explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_report ('much cheaper than get_report'). An agent can distinguish it from get_report and list_sections without opening either 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?

Gives clear context for when to prefer this over get_report ('much cheaper', 'best for RAG'), which is the key routing decision. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming list_sections here as the alternative for discovery, though the schema's section description covers that fallback.

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