Read one section

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint), so the description's real contribution is defining the boundary of what is returned — everything up to the next same-or-higher-level heading — plus the document-wide lookup scope. It omits error behavior when no section matches, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the return value and packs the boundary and lookup semantics without filler. Nothing to remove.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned and how the target is located, and the schema covers the parameters. Missing only not-found/error behavior and multi-file ambiguity handling.

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% and all three parameters (file, title, project) are documented in the schema, including the case-insensitive exact-then-partial match rule. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Returns the LaTeX of one section') and defines the exact extent of that resource ('up to the next heading of the same or higher level'), which distinguishes it from read_file and get_outline. It stops short of naming any sibling tool explicitly.

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?

It implies the tool fetches a single section by title, and notes the title is searched 'anywhere in the document', but never says when to prefer this over read_file, get_outline, or search, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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