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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's main added value is that the response includes the section's HTML description, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about not-found behavior, permissions, or response shape beyond that one field.

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, front-loaded with the resource and the meaningful payload note. The trailing 'GET /sections/{id}.json' restates the schema's only parameter and is largely 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?

For a single-record read with one required param, full schema coverage, and a readOnlyHint, this is nearly sufficient: the agent knows what it fetches and that HTML is returned. Only edge behavior (missing id, error shape) is unaddressed.

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 the single parameter's schema text already says it is a positive integer from bidsketch_list_sections. The description adds no parameter detail, 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 and resource ('Get one saved section') and adds that the HTML description is included, which distinguishes it from the list/update siblings in substance. It does not explicitly name bidsketch_list_sections or bidsketch_get_proposal_section as 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: needing a single saved section by id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over bidsketch_list_sections or bidsketch_get_proposal_section, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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