Report section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of caching behavior (despite the 'fresh' parameter), how sections relate to parent reports, or what the call returns.

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?

It is a single waste-free sentence, but it is not front-loaded with the operative verb and reads more as a noun gloss than an instruction, so brevity comes at the cost of specification.

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 tool with five parameters, a required date range, a free-form nested 'filters' object, and no output schema, one illustrative sentence is inadequate. The description does not explain how a section is identified within a report or how results relate to stats_report.

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 baseline is 3. However, the most semantically loaded parameter, 'filters' (opaque additionalProperties described only as 'Section parameters as the report returned them'), would benefit from description-level explanation that is entirely absent.

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 identifies the tool's subject ('one section of a report') and clarifies with examples ('one staff member or a later page of a table'), which does distinguish it conceptually from stats_report. But it never states an action verb (fetch/retrieve/generate) or what the tool actually does with a section, leaving the purpose vague relative to siblings like stats_report and stats_report_catalog.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus stats_report, stats_report_catalog, stats_report_metadata, or report_export. The examples hint at pagination semantics but give no explicit selection criteria or prerequisites.

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