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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's added value is limited to the endpoint path and the hint that sections are 'text' content of the opening/closing variety. It says nothing about ordering, what fields each section carries, or whether empty results are possible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence establishes the scope, followed by the endpoint as a compact reference. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple paginated read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is listed and against which proposal. The remaining gap is the shape of the returned sections, which matters somewhat since no output schema exists.

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 page, per_page, and proposal_id all documented including defaults and bounds. The description only restates that the id is a path parameter, adding no semantics beyond the schema, 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 ('List the text sections of one proposal') and narrows the scope with '(opening and closing)', which separates it from the global bidsketch_list_sections. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, but the 'of one proposal' scoping makes the distinction inferable.

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 by the resource name and scope; there is no statement of when to call this versus bidsketch_get_proposal_section (single section), bidsketch_get_proposal_content, or bidsketch_list_sections. The agent must infer the choice from tool names alone.

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