Swagger: List Table Of Contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the section/product/portal scoping and pagination defaults, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral context such as response shape, embed limitations, or error conditions.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, and the toolset heading is useful. However, the parameter bullets are redundant with the input schema and add unnecessary length without contributing new information.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, the description is sufficient for calling the tool: it states the hierarchy, required sectionId, and pagination defaults. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling TOC tools, but that is not blocking for invocation.

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 description's parameter section restates the schema's descriptions almost verbatim. It therefore adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the agent can already read from the input schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource: 'table of contents for a section of a product within a portal.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools operating on portals, products, sections, or on creating/deleting a table of contents.

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 resource hierarchy makes the intended use fairly clear, and the 'Toolset: Table Of Contents' heading adds context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over sibling create/delete TOC tools or how to obtain a sectionId, so guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

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