get_section

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

Annotations already provide 'readOnlyHint: true', so the description's burden is lower. The description adds technical detail ('byte-range reads') but does not elaborate on side effects, authentication needs, or performance. No contradictions with annotations.

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 consists of two concise, well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the output format or any limitations of byte-range reads, leaving the agent to infer return values from 'full content'.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, but it reinforces the main parameter by mentioning 'section_id' in context.

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's action ('Retrieve the full content of a specific section') and specifies the resource ('section'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'get_section_summary' by implying it returns full content, and provides a usage hint ('Use after identifying section IDs...').

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('after identifying section IDs via search_sections or get_toc'), providing a clear precondition. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for similar tasks, leaving some room for improvement.

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