aethis_validate_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result (missing vs extra) and the follow-up action, though it says nothing about the odd idempotentHint=false or any cost/size behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose/return shape first, then when to call, then the conditional next step. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining the return value and does so (missing and extra sections). Combined with annotations covering safety and the workflow branch covering next steps, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents domain, expected_sections, and discovered_sections with formats and examples. The description only implies the expected-vs-discovered distinction and adds no syntax or format detail 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 (compare/validate) and resource (discovered sections vs expected specification), and names exactly what the result contains (missing and extra sections). This cleanly distinguishes it from aethis_validate_fields and from aethis_discover_sections, which it explicitly references.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Call after aethis_discover_sections') and an explicit remediation branch ('If sections are missing, call aethis_add_domain_guidance with adherence="exact"'), including the argument value to pass. No inference is required.

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