list_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the output scope (parts, subparts, section numbers, headings, schedules), which is the core contract for a read-only navigation tool. However, it does not address the both-optional-parameter case (what happens with neither work_id nor version_id), pagination for large documents, or how a work_id is obtained — meaningful gaps given there is no annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and output scope, the second gives the usage workflow. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Purpose, output scope, and workflow position are all present, and the parameter either/or relationship is fully covered by the schema. Minor gaps remain: the description doesn't note how to obtain a work_id/version_id (e.g., via list_versions) or what to expect on very large documents, and there is no output schema to describe the return shape.

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%: both parameters already carry the 'Provide either version_id or work_id' semantics and the 'newest version will be used' resolution note. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('structure of a legislation document'), then enumerates exactly what is included: 'Parts, subparts, section numbers and headings, and schedules.' The content enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like get_legislation_text (content retrieval) and list_versions (version metadata).

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in a workflow: 'Use this before get_legislation_text to find the right section or schedule number.' It names the downstream alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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