get_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the load. It does disclose that results carry page numbers and that this descends below top-level index entries, which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about depth limits, empty results, or that it is read-only.

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 the purpose front-loaded and the usage condition second. Nothing is wasted and no clause is redundant with the provided schema.

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 output schema covers return values and the input schema covers both parameters, so the description only needs purpose and routing, both of which it supplies. A minor gap is the absence of fallback behavior when a section has no outline entries.

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% and both parameters, including the section-number format, are already documented there. The description only echoes 'one section' and 'document', adding no format or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource precisely ('outline entries under one section of a document, with pages'), which tells an agent this is a scoped structural read rather than a full index. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_index by describing the deeper per-section scope, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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?

Gives a concrete selection condition: use for a large document, when get_index gives only the top levels. That routes the agent away from get_index toward this tool. It does not say when to prefer get_index or get_element_text instead, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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