search_erskine_may_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose pagination semantics (skip/take with defaults) and the return shape ('sections with matching titles'), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about read-only nature, result caps, ordering, or matching behavior (exact vs partial). Adequate but incomplete for an annotation-free tool.

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 one-line statement is front-loaded and clear. The Args/Returns block partially duplicates the input schema and the output schema, but it is short and keeps the pagination defaults visible in one 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly stops at 'sections with matching titles'. Pagination is covered; the remaining gap is search matching semantics, which is minor for a three-parameter search tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document all three parameters: search_term as the title search term, skip as pagination offset with default 0, and take as result count with default 30. It adds the purpose of skip/take beyond the bare defaults, though it gives no format or matching details for search_term.

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 ('Search Erskine May section titles') and immediately scopes it to titles rather than full content, which distinguishes it from the sibling content search tool search_erskine_may. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

'Use to find sections by title rather than content' gives a clear selection condition against the title-vs-content axis, which is the relevant alternative in this sibling set. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (search_erskine_may) or stating exclusions, so it is strong but not fully explicit routing.

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