List an article's sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the integration behavior that the returned indexes are directly consumed by get_page, which is useful context. No contradiction; edge cases like missing articles are not discussed, but the annotation bar lowers the burden.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys output type and downstream use with no filler. Every word carries meaning and it explicitly references the relevant sibling tool.

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 one simple parameter, no output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It tells the agent what it returns and how the indexes connect to get_page, though it could be more explicit about the response shape (e.g., top-level headings only).

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 only parameter, title, is fully documented in the schema including an example and redirect-following behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the article is identified by title, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's output—section headings with indexes—and differentiates it from sibling tools by linking to get_page's 'section' parameter. The title supplies the verb 'List,' so an agent immediately knows this returns a list of headings rather than page content, infobox data, or categories.

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 'indexes usable as get_page's `section`' tells the agent the natural use case: fetch sections before requesting a specific page section. It does not name exclusions or compare against siblings like list_subpages, so it stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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