get_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Get details') without explaining what 'details' entail, potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.

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 a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, such as hinting at the type of details retrieved.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'details' are returned, how errors are handled, or how it differs from sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('id' and 'code') with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'id' and 'code' or their significance. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 'Get details of a specific section' clearly states the action (get) and resource (section), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' include and does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_hierarchy' or 'verify_section', which might also retrieve section-related information. This vagueness prevents a higher score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as 'get_hierarchy', 'list_codes', and 'search_code', it is unclear if this tool is for retrieving metadata, structural info, or something else. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues, leaving usage ambiguous.

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