get_bse_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the multi-source fallback (BSE or CNINFO), that the response carries which one was used, and that failures return {error}. It stops short of saying anything about auth needs, rate limits, or PDF availability edge cases.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the fallback/return details compactly appended. Nothing is wasted, though the flat return-value listing adds little.

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?

For a 3-required-parameter extraction tool, the description covers sourcing and error behavior but leaves the parameter vocabulary entirely undocumented — notably what valid section names are, which matters since the tool extracts by name. An output schema exists, so restating the return fields was optional.

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% and the description gives no meaning for the three required parameters. It hints that 'section' is a name, but ticker_or_name format, accepted year format, and the section vocabulary (matching outline_entry / list_outline) are all left unstated, so the agent must guess.

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 (Extract), a specific resource (a named section of an annual-report PDF), and a specific exchange scope (BSE company), which cleanly separates it from the sibling get_sse_section, get_szse_section, and get_hk_section.

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 exchange scope ('a BSE company') implies when this tool applies, and the CNINFO fallback is noted, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus alternatives like get_section, extract_section, or the other exchange-specific section tools.

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