get_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose that the return value is the complete section text rather than a summary or excerpt. It says nothing about behavior on an unknown id, whether large sections are truncated, or any access constraints.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with what is returned, then the id examples. Nothing redundant and no wasted framing.

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 single-required-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, this covers the essentials: what comes back and what the id looks like. Only edge-case behavior (invalid ids, oversized sections) is absent.

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 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning, and it does: it gives two worked examples and decodes their structure ('R14-V' = Rule 14, Section V; 'C-II-L' = Comments). A full grammar for the id format would earn a 5.

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 resource and scope: the full text of exactly one rulebook section, retrieved by id. This implicitly separates it from list_sections and search_rules, though it never names them.

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 phrase 'by id' implies an id must already be known (presumably from list_sections or search_rules), but the description never states when to prefer this tool over those siblings or what to do without an id. Usage is inferable rather than specified.

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