summarize_article_section

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return behavior ('Returns a dictionary containing the section summary or an error'), which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention max_length effects, but the annotation coverage lowers the required burden.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has annotations and an output schema, and the description states purpose and return type. However, it lacks parameter semantics, usage guidelines versus siblings, and any mention of max_length or error handling nuances, leaving meaningful gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation for the parameters (title, section_title, max_length). It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the agent's inference from names.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific section of a Wikipedia article'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_summary (whole article summary) and get_sections (list sections). It also states the return type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_summary or summarize_article_for_query. The usage is only implied by the phrase 'specific section', with no explicit when/when-not or sibling differentiation.

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