get_sections

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already declared, the description's 'Read-only' adds nothing new, but it does disclose non-obvious behavior: the cache-staleness rule (re-call after topology changes) and that indices are session-relative rather than persistent. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core verb+resource before the return-value and re-call details. Slightly dense in enumerating return fields, but each clause carries information, and the trailing 'Read-only' is a minor redundancy against the annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description helpfully enumerates the return surface (section_index, boundary metadata, page numbering, size, margins, header/footer refs). Combined with the staleness rule, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the choice between this tool and get_document_outline is left unaddressed.

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 both file_path and google_doc_id are fully documented in the schema, including the URL-extraction hint. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Read DOCX main-document sections in document order,' and names the key return artifact (zero-based session-relative section_index values). It distinguishes itself from generic reads like read_file/grep by scoping to section topology, but never explicitly contrasts with the nearby get_document_outline sibling.

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?

'Call again after any operation that changes section topology' gives one concrete re-invocation trigger, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_document_outline, read_file, or extract_revisions, leaving the agent to infer the choice among several read-oriented siblings.

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