list_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful output semantics — the two distinct section taxonomies, example code sets per survey family, and the caveat that they don't correspond — which is real value. It says nothing about read-only behavior, permissions, or cost, though for a listing tool that gap is modest.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the two-category breakdown and the non-correspondence caveat. The enumerated examples (EC/ED/HH/HO/VL, WM/CH/BR/PR) tighten the sentences somewhat, but they are illustrative rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's burden; even so, the description supplies the interpretive key (two taxonomies that don't map one-to-one) that a schema alone would not convey. Combined with the schema's parameter guidance, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 the single 'survey' parameter is already documented in the schema, including the 'use list_surveys to see available values' hint and examples. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 — listing the sections a survey contains — and even defines the resource into two concrete categories (physical_sections, questionnaire_sections) with example codes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_tables or list_schemas, which could plausibly be confused with 'physical_sections' as a table-splitting scheme.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it's evident you call this to discover a survey's section structure, and the note that the two lists are not one-to-one helps interpret results. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to alternatives, even though list_tables and list_schemas overlap conceptually with physical sections.

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