get_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (heading + body) and a cost relationship to get_doc, but says nothing about failure modes such as an unmatched or ambiguous heading, or whether doc_id must come from a prior search. Adequate but with real gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the sibling comparison follows, and the Args block is tight and non-redundant. Slightly padded by the multi-line argument enumeration, but every line carries non-obvious information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers input semantics and relative cost thoroughly. The remaining hole is edge-case behavior (heading not found or ambiguous), which is a minor omission given the otherwise complete coverage.

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 the Args block does so well: doc_id accepts either a search_docs id or a path form ('items/index.md' / 'items'), heading accepts an anchor, a heading title, or a distinctive path fragment, and version is conditional ('only used when doc_id is a path'). This is meaning the bare schema cannot convey.

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 (return one section, heading + body, of a documentation page) and explicitly names the sibling it is a narrower alternative to: 'Cheaper and more focused than get_doc.' An agent can distinguish it from get_doc, list_docs, and find_symbol without opening any 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?

Gives a clear selection signal versus get_doc ('cheaper and more focused'), implying this is the right tool when a single section suffices rather than a full page. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., when you need multiple sections or the whole document), so no explicit exclusions.

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