doc_sections

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description's additional value is modest. It adds the scoping behavior that the output is an index with page references and that it should be called before text/table retrieval. It does not cover pagination or limit behavior, but with annotations present this is a reasonable 4.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return contents, then the workflow and rationale. Every phrase contributes to understanding what to call and when; there is no 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?

Output schema exists, so return format need not be fully restated, yet the description still tells the agent what the index contains. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers purpose and sequencing, leaving only minor parameter detail to the schema.

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 moderate at 67%, and the description contains no parameter-level guidance for `doc`, `find`, or `limit`. The schema itself documents `doc` and `find` with examples, but `limit` is only constrained by default/max and not described anywhere. The description fails to compensate for the remaining gap.

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 exactly what the tool returns—an index of bookmarks, contents, headings, and table/figure captions with page numbers—rather than just restating the name. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by positioning it as the first step before doc_text or doc_page. An agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit workflow: 'Ask this first,' then use doc_text with the returned pages or doc_page for a specific table. It names the alternatives and explains why this ordering is useful for datasheet lookups. This is clear when-to-use guidance.

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