get_library_sections_by_section_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: include_details is backward-compatibility-only and 'media providers other than the server libraries have it on always,' plus it defines what details means (types, filters, sorts). No contradiction 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 is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the HTTP path and scannable argument documentation. The HTTP path is slightly redundant with the function name and section_id argument, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a two-parameter read operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers the request path, the meaning of both parameters, and the important include_details quirk. The main missing context is explicit guidance about which of the many section-related sibling tools this one replaces, but that is more of a usage-guideline issue.

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 compensate for the schema's lack of parameter docs. include_details is well explained, including its purpose and default-like behavior. However, section_id is only described as 'The section identifier,' which essentially restates the schema title 'Section Id' and adds no real semantic value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a library section by id.' It clearly identifies the operation and the id-based scoping, which differentiates it from list-style endpoints. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling get_library_sections_by_section_id_* variants, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_library_sections, get_library_sections_by_section_id_all, or edit/settings variants. The include_details note is parameter-level documentation, not tool-selection guidance. With a large sibling list containing many similarly named section getters, this absence is a meaningful gap.

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