sbis_get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned records, but since an output schema already exists, that adds limited new behavioral context (no pagination, ordering, or scope limits disclosed).

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 compact statements with the core action front-loaded; the Args/Returns docstring format is slightly mechanical but contains no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, the parameter source, and the return shape. What an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present, with only routing guidance against siblings left implicit.

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 coverage for 'section' is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the parameter is a section name, points to the listing tool that yields valid values, and gives a concrete example ('statistics'). That is meaningfully more than the bare string type in the schema.

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 and resource: 'List all endpoints in one section', which is more precise than a bare name restatement. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sbis_list_sections (which lists sections) by referring the caller to that tool for section names, though the contrast is not made fully explicit.

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 tells the agent where to get a section name ({svc}_list_sections), which is implied usage guidance, but it does not say when to prefer this over sbis_search_methods or sbis_describe_method, nor state any exclusions.

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