get_page_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as header matching behavior (case-insensitivity) or error conditions. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still adds minimal value.

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 a single sentence with no fluff. It could benefit from an additional sentence about usage, but it is efficiently structured.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) which reduces the need to describe return values. However, the description lacks details about header matching behavior and potential edge cases, making it minimally adequate for a straightforward extraction tool.

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% with all three parameters described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'extract', the resource 'section from an article', and the method 'by header name'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_page_sections (which gets all sections) and get_page_content (full content), though it could explicitly contrast with get_page_sections.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, such as when to choose this over get_page_sections or get_page_content. A suggestion like 'Use this instead of get_page_sections if you need a single section' would improve it.

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