get_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the internal pipeline (CNINFO lookup → PDF URL → outline extraction), which usefully signals a network-dependent, multi-stage operation. It says nothing about auth requirements, caching, rate limits, failure modes, or what happens when the section title doesn't match.

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 short lines with zero waste, purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the wrapper relationship clarified in the second. Every clause earns its 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, return values need not be explained, and the description adequately covers the input-to-output pipeline. The one real gap is scope: it does not indicate which filers/exchange universe it covers versus the many regional get_*_section siblings.

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 ticker_or_name, year, form, and the section selector grammar. The description only restates the parameter tuple '(ticker, year, section, form)' without adding format or semantic 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+resource: 'Resolve a company's filing PDF and extract one named section,' which is a clear action. The 'Convenience wrapper' framing also distinguishes it from the lower-level extract_section sibling. However, it never names its exchange/source scope (CNINFO/mainland) against the many sibling get_*_section variants (SZSE, BSE, HK, SSE), leaving the agent to infer differentiation.

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?

Calling itself a 'convenience wrapper' implies it should be used when you want a one-shot ticker→section flow instead of the multi-step lookup+extract path, which is implied guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing away from exchange-specific siblings like get_sse_section or get_hk_section.

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