query_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Retrieve' wording is consistent with those. The description adds the one-vs-many selection behavior, but it does not disclose details such as child-section nesting or large-output behavior, which are documented only in the schema. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence communicates the tool's purpose and the key operation switch without repetition or filler. It is front-loaded with the primary behavior and the action mechanism is stated efficiently.

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 read-only query tool with a rich oneOf schema, the description plus schema covers the necessary call structure, required IDs, and optional filters/output_file. It does not describe the return shape, but no output schema exists and the operation is a simple retrieval, so this is a minor gap. The only notable omission is explicit routing guidance relative to get_sections.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the action branches, section_id, project_id, suite_id, include_child, output_file, and name_pattern. The description's instruction to set payload.action to 'one' or 'many' adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, hitting the baseline of 3.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('sections for a project'), and notes the two operation modes via payload.action. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_sections tool, 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?

The description tells the agent to choose action='one' or 'many' but gives no context for when to use query_section versus sibling tools such as get_sections or mutate_section. The only usage hints live inside the parameter schema ('Use query_suite...'), not in the tool-level guidance, so there is effectively no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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