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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotation by specifying that topics are included in the result, but it does not disclose return shape, possible errors, or other behavioral details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value: the action, the target, the lookup key, and the included topics.

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 one-parameter, read-only get-by-id tool, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It specifies the required input, identifies the resource, and even clarifies what the response includes ('including its topics'). No essential information is missing.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage and section_id is already described as 'Id of the preference section'. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond restating the by-id concept, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('preference section'), and the key qualifier 'by id'. It also notes that topics are included, which distinguishes this from get_preference_topic and list_preference_sections.

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 'by id' qualifier makes the intended use clear: fetch one specific preference section when its id is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_preference_sections, but the context clearly implies a targeted get-by-id operation.

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