get_rfc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: oversized non-section reads fail with an error naming the size rather than dumping context, page headers and footers are stripped, and the response carries a status/supersession banner. The failure mode and response shape are both disclosed, which is rare and valuable.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and the single most important directive (pass a section), then the size rationale, then parameter rules. Dense but every sentence carries operational information; nothing is padding.

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, and the description still covers the response banner, stripped boilerplate, and the error behavior for oversized reads. Combined with the parameter constraints, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description has to carry all five parameters, and it does for section (number or heading text, includes subsections), max_lines (caps any read, including sections), start_line (fallback, mutually exclusive with section) and full (escape hatch for whole text). The number parameter's accepted forms (integer or string) and heading-match tolerance are left implicit.

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 an RFC") and immediately positions it in a workflow by naming the sibling list_sections as the prerequisite step. An agent can tell this apart from list_sections and search_rfcs without opening any 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?

Explicit routing rules: call list_sections first and pass a section, use full=true only when the whole text is genuinely needed, and use start_line only as a fallback for RFCs without numbered headings. It also names a concrete exclusion (start_line cannot be combined with section), which is exactly the kind of constraint that prevents bad calls.

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