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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the exact JSON return shape and the globally unique nature of paragraph numbers, which clarifies how results can be addressed.

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 description is efficiently structured: what the tool does, the argument, the return shape, and a key uniqueness note. Since there is no output schema, the detailed JSON listing earns its place and is not redundant.

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 fully compensates by enumerating all returned fields and totals. It also explains optional filtering and the significance of unique paragraph numbers. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The only parameter, chapter, has 100% schema description coverage, including the crucial 'Omit for every paragraph' instruction. The description merely repeats 'chapter (optional integer)' without adding semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Paragraphs (§) of the problem book, optionally restricted to one chapter." This clearly identifies what is listed and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_chapters and list_problems, while the mention of unique paragraph numbers reinforces the resource identity.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: list paragraphs, with an optional chapter restriction. It also clarifies the omission behavior through the schema description ('Omit for every paragraph in the book'). It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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