get_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: unknown IDs produce per-ID errors rather than failing the entire call, and only explicitly requested section content is returned. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence adds critical error-handling nuance without bloat.

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 effectively covers the core retrieval behavior and error semantics. While there is no output schema, the tool's behavior is simple enough that the description is nearly complete; the main omission is any mention of the return shape, but that is not critical for this kind of batch content retrieval.

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 schema fully documents all five parameters including defaults and behaviors for verify, compress_code, and strip_boilerplate. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs 'batch content retrieval for multiple sections in one call', distinguishing it from single-section tools like get_section and summary-focused tools like get_section_summaries. The scope ('Content only for the ids you pass') is explicitly defined.

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 conveys clear context for use: batch retrieval across multiple section IDs in one call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'in one call' phrasing implies it as the batch counterpart to single-section retrieval.

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