get_paper_latex_section

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral traits beyond the annotations: results are bounded, matching is whitespace/case normalized, and macros are expanded. While readOnlyHint is false, the description's 'Return' language does not explicitly contradict that annotation, and the added normalization/expansion context is valuable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the core purpose and key matching behaviors into minimal words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description is adequate for selecting the tool, but with no output schema and only terse behavioral notes, it leaves some gaps: it does not describe the return structure, how 'bounded' interacts with max_chars/return_full_text, or what happens when a section is not found. The schema compensates partially, but the description alone is not fully self-sufficient.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds useful semantics for section_id by mentioning title/outline ID and normalization, but it does not add significant meaning for start, max_chars, or return_full_text beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('one bounded LaTeX section'), and the selection mechanism ('by outline ID or title'). It also adds useful matching semantics ('whitespace/case normalized; macros expanded'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_paper_latex and list_paper_latex_sections.

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 implies usage when a single bounded LaTeX section is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of related tools such as get_paper_latex, read_paper_section, or list_paper_latex_sections. There are no stated exclusions or alternative-selection conditions.

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