cc_sections

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a read-only reporting behavior, but it does not disclose how the crawl parameter affects results, how sections are derived, or any edge-case behavior. The second sentence adds meaningful context about what the output represents.

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 short sentences with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful interpretation without bloating the text.

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 explains the tool's purpose and its output concept, and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. However, the lack of parameter semantics, especially for the optional crawl parameter, leaves operational invocation partially underspecified.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the three parameters (domain, crawl, limit). It does not clarify the role of the optional crawl parameter or the semantics of limit, failing to compensate for the missing 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 description clearly states the tool shows top site sections by number of indexed pages ('Топ разделов сайта по числу проиндексированных страниц') and adds interpretive value with the coverage-skew observation. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like cc_urls or cc_locales.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is useful: to reveal coverage skew and which sections the crawler sees. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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