Sections available for a school

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral detail that the sections are 'parsed from its sidebar', and emphasizes the actual state rather than assumed defaults, which is contextual beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes concrete examples. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists (so return values don't need description), and the description explains the core purpose and use case. It does not enumerate all possible sections, but gives sufficient examples to infer the output. A small gap is that it doesn't explicitly say the output is a list of section names.

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%, with a single optional school_id parameter well-documented in the schema ('School id from list_schools. Omit for the default view'). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states the tool lists the ParentSquare sections a school actually has, parsed from its sidebar. It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'sections', and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on feature availability.

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 'so you know whether to bother with polls, payments, volunteer hours and so on' implies usage before calling feature-specific list tools like list_polls or list_payments. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it's clear but not fully explicit.

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