read_paper_section

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add meaningful context. It does add clarity about section boundaries and markdown output, but it does not describe behavior like truncation, the effect of return_full_text, or what happens when the section is not found.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The key idea is front-loaded, and the scoping detail about sibling and parent sections adds useful information without repetition.

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 read-only tool with fully documented parameters, the description provides enough context: a single markdown section, selected by outline ID or title, without extra surrounding sections. An explicit pointer to sibling alternatives would improve completeness, but the description is not inadequate.

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 input schema already explains all parameters. The description repeats the meaning of section_id as outline ID or unique title, but it provides no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly identifies the action (return), the resource (one bounded markdown section), and the selector (outline ID or unique title). It also differentiates from full-paper or outline-related siblings by stating that sibling and parent sections are not included.

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 the tool is for retrieving a single section rather than an entire paper, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like read_paper, get_paper_outline, or get_paper_latex_section. The boundary statement is useful but not a full usage guideline.

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