read_document_section

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

The description explicitly labels the operation as reading and the annotations confirm readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint are all safe. It adds the max_chars cap behavior, but does not mention error cases or rate limits, though the annotations already cover the key safety profile.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It front-loads the core action and limit before giving the parameter relationship.

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 a simple read operation but does not specify the return format or error behavior. Since there is no output schema, some guidance on what the caller receives would improve completeness.

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 schema describes all parameters except max_chars, and the description clarifies the relationship between section_id, snapshot_id, and document_id by requiring earlier return values. The max_chars behavior is explained in the description, compensating for the missing schema description.

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 reads up to 1200 characters from a section, and it specifies that the section must have been previously returned for the same snapshot and document. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_excerpt or get_multiple_excerpts.

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 gives a useful precondition—use a section_id previously returned for the same snapshot and document—but it does not explain when to choose this tool over the sibling excerpt tools or retrieval_status. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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