read_doc_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating the expected output size ('a few hundred tokens'), which helps with budgeting and batching decisions. It does not cover failure modes such as a missing section or an ambiguous heading prefix, which is a minor gap against the annotations already in place.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the scoping statement is front-loaded ahead of the sibling comparison. Every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, a fully covered parameter schema, and safety annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it. The only meaningful omission is what happens when the section identifier does not resolve.

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 is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the anchor/heading/prefix forms. The description only echoes 'anchor or heading' and adds no syntax or disambiguation detail beyond that baseline.

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 ('Read one section of a documentation article') with an explicit scoping mechanism ('by anchor or heading'), which makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling read_doc, which returns a whole article.

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?

Explicitly names the preferred alternative ('Prefer this over read_doc') and justifies it with a token-cost rationale. It lacks an explicit when-to-use-read_doc-instead clause, but the implied inverse (need the whole article) is easy to infer.

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