hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the behavior change based on the section parameter and describes the output shape for both cases. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but the semantics strongly imply a read operation.

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?

One compact sentence with a clear conditional structure. It front-loads the tool purpose and wastes no words on filler.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives an adequate high-level shape of the response in both modes. It still leaves the exact structure of the section summary and 'top-level objects' underspecified, so it is not fully complete.

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?

The schema only says section is a 'Раздел для детализации', while the description adds practical meaning: providing section changes the result to grouped top-level pages with counts. That is meaningful value beyond the parameter description.

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 specifies the resource (оглавление/hierarchy) and defines two distinct output modes depending on the optional section parameter. It is clear about what is returned, though it does not explicitly reference sibling tools to sharpen differentiation.

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 conditional guidance: omit section for a summary, provide section for page groups with counts. However, it does not state when to use this tool over siblings such as related, search, or discover, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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