list_sections

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden. It does convey that the call is a pure enumeration returning id/title pairs, which signals a safe read, but it says nothing about cost, pagination, or whether the section list is exhaustive across rulebook versions. For a zero-parameter read, the gap is modest but real.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the mental model and immediately followed by the returned fields. No redundant restatement of the name, 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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and a simple read-only enumeration, the description covers essentially everything an agent needs to decide to call it. Only an explicit pointer to get_section as the follow-up would make it complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing filter options that do not exist.

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 uses a concrete metaphor ('table of contents') tied to a specific resource ('the rulebook') and states the exact payload: every section id with its title. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_rules (which finds by query) and get_section (which fetches one section), though it never names either sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before get_section, but the description never says when to use it, when not to, or that search_rules is the alternative for targeted lookups. The 'table of contents' framing carries the guidance rather than explicit routing language.

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