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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond those annotations: that a section request returns the full section body, that full markdown is exposed through a .md URL, and that citation/source attribution is required.

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 core retrieval behavior and section behavior are front-loaded and concise. The copyright and citation sentences are somewhat ancillary but relevant to responsible use of the returned content, so they mostly earn their place.

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 read-only lookup tool with rich annotations, a complete input schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential return behavior, including TOC/metadata, full section retrieval, and the .md URL. It is nearly complete, though alternative-tool guidance 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the effect of the optional section parameter: specifying it returns that section's full text rather than only the TOC/metadata.

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 and resource: retrieving a standard's table of contents, section/paragraph ranges, and metadata. It also clarifies that specifying section returns the full section body. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_paragraphs or list_standards.

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 description implies usage by explaining that a section can be specified to get the full section text, and that full markdown is available via a .md URL. But it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to fetch, search, get_paragraphs, or list_standards.

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