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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. It adds that the section's HTML description is included (relevant since there is no output schema) and gives the endpoint path, but says nothing about error behavior for missing IDs or authentication. Meets the lower bar set by annotations without going far beyond it.

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 short sentences, the purpose front-loaded and the endpoint path supplied as secondary detail. The path template is mild redundancy against the schema but costs little space.

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?

A simple two-parameter read with fully documented schema and a readOnly annotation; the description fills the main remaining gap by telling the agent that the HTML description is part of the result. Missing only minor context such as behavior for an invalid or unknown section ID.

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%, with both integer parameters documented as positive integers, so the baseline is 3. The description only mirrors the schema's parameter names via the {id}/{section_id} path template and adds no format or lookup-hint detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one section of a proposal') and names the returned payload ('with its HTML description'), which distinguishes it from list_proposal_sections and get_section. It does not explicitly call out which sibling is the alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only implied: 'one section ... with its HTML description' suggests it is the call for retrieving a single section's rendered content rather than a list. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given, despite several closely related siblings (get_section, list_proposal_sections, get_proposal_content).

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