get_1c_platform_help_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'read' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return format, error behavior, whether the id must come from a prior search, or what happens if the id is invalid. With no annotations and no output schema, this is a significant gap for a non-trivial tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence conveys a helpful routing rule. It earns its place, though the distinction between 'fragment' and 'section' in the second sentence is slightly confusing and could be phrased more crisply.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns, when the id is unavailable, and how root/source affect the lookup. It only covers basic purpose and one sibling alternative. For an operation that depends on an external search result, the context provided is incomplete.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It only restates that the id comes from the search output, which is already in the schema. No additional meaning beyond the input schema is provided, warranting the baseline 3.

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 first sentence clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'read the exact fragment by stable id' from the search output. It also names get_1c_platform_help_document and gives a differentiating condition, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its sibling without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says get_1c_platform_help_document is preferable when you need exactly the found section without extra context, giving a conditional routing instruction. However, it does not explicitly cover when not to use this tool or mention the other siblings like search_1c_platform_help, so it is not a full replacement for usage guidance.

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