workiva_get_document_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose what exactly is returned, whether permissions are required, or how errors are handled. There is no context about the response structure or any side effects, making it minimally transparent.

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 extremely concise: a single action sentence followed by a brief Args block. Every line earns its place by stating the core purpose and the two required parameters. There is no redundant information, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 simple getter with two required parameters and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action and the parameters, and the output schema handles return values. However, it lacks any usage context or mention of error behavior, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'document_id: The document UUID' and 'section_id: The section UUID,' which adds only the fact that these are UUIDs. This is a marginal clarification beyond the schema's type 'string' and does not explain what a document or section is, or how the identifiers relate.

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 'Get a single document section,' which uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('document section'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_document_sections (which lists sections) and create/delete/copy operations. The inclusion of document_id and section_id clarifies the scope as retrieving one specific section.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as workiva_list_document_sections or workiva_get_document. It neither mentions prerequisites nor scenarios where this tool is preferable. The usage is only implied by the action itself, which is insufficient per the rubric.

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