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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuine context beyond them: specifying section returns the entire section body, full markdown is also reachable via a .md URL in the response, and results are for lookup only with a citation obligation to the issuing body. It does not mention pagination or size limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core retrieve behavior and only then the section-body effect, markdown URL, and copyright/citation constraint. Nothing is wasted, though the licensing sentences are boilerplate that could be trimmed.

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, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so: TOC with section/paragraph ranges, metadata, full section body on demand, and a .md URL for the whole document. Partitioning versus sibling tools like get_paragraphs is the one thing left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents std, the domain enum, and section's partial-match behavior. The description nevertheless adds meaning the schema lacks — that supplying section changes the response from a TOC to the full section body — which justifies going above baseline.

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+resource: retrieving a standard's table of contents (sections and paragraph ranges) plus metadata from the accounting wiki, and notes it returns the full section body when a section is named. That is enough to distinguish it from list_standards (listing) and get_paragraphs (paragraph-level retrieval), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implied — reach for this when you need a standard's TOC/metadata or a whole section body — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_paragraphs for granular paragraph lookups. A reader must infer the boundary from the purpose statement alone.

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