gold402_list_sections

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds beyond that by saying the tool returns counts and section IDs and how those IDs feed into search. This is useful behavioral/return context without contradicting the annotations.

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, purposeful sentences: the first names the action and result, the second gives the concrete integration hint. No filler, repetition, or wasted words.

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 simple list tool with safe annotations, a one-parameter schema, and an output schema, this description is complete: it explains what the tool lists, what it returns, and how to use the result in a sibling tool. No missing contextual element is apparent.

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 description is silent on the response_format parameter, but the schema itself documents that parameter thoroughly with an enum, default, and usage note. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource ('List the shelves (categories) of the gold-402 directory') and adds a useful output detail ('entry count for each'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling search/retrieval/endpoint tools.

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 tells the agent the primary downstream use ('Use the returned section id as the 'section' filter in gold402_search'), which gives clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly say when not to use it versus alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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