get_api_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that no API key is required, which is useful auth-relevant context, and the 'Get' wording implies a read-only operation. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or any other behavioral detail beyond that.

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 description is two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the purpose and the second lists the available sections and calls out the auth requirement. No filler or redundancy is present.

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 simple read-only documentation tool with one optional parameter fully described by the schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the resource, the sections, the credential requirement, and is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 section parameter is fully documented there, including the default value and enum values. The description repeats most enum options but adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for tools whose schema carries the parameter documentation load.

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 names the exact resource: "Scriptivox API documentation," and enumerates the available sections. This sets it apart from the sibling get_* tools, which target pricing, supported languages, product info, or check_balance. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 description clearly communicates this is the tool for retrieving Scriptivox API documentation, with the relevant documentation sections listed. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the resource distinction is strong enough that an agent can pick it correctly.

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