get_section_outline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the outline contains no requirement text, which prevents an agent from mistakenly quoting it. It does not discuss pagination or output size for large standards.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact per-parameter glosses and a single cautionary sentence. Given the 0% schema coverage, the parameter lines earn their place, though the text runs as one dense block rather than clearly delimited sections.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: clause numbers, titles, record counts by kind, the record IDs placed directly in a clause, and the tables in it. Combined with the clause/depth semantics and the pointer to text-retrieval siblings, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: doc_id is given with two concrete example identifiers, clause is explained including the omit-for-whole-document behavior, and depth is defined as heading levels below the start with its default of 2. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opening line states a concrete verb+resource: a table of contents for one standard, returning clause numbers, titles, and per-kind record counts. The closing sentence separates it from get_requirement and get_table by declaring that no requirement text is included, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a 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 clearly routes the agent to alternatives ('use get_requirement / get_table for anything you quote or cite') and explains the scope effect of the clause parameter (that section and its subsections). It lacks an explicit when-to-use versus list_documents or search_requirements, so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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