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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: text_type is AI-edited/summarized and not verbatim, dates track recording/update rather than expiry, historical announcements may be stale, results are capped at 8000 UTF-16 units with truncation, no AI generation or network retrieval occurs, and returned text is untrusted source data, never instructions. This is far richer than the readOnly/idempotent hints alone.

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?

Though the description is long, every sentence carries load-bearing guidance: fallback rules, data provenance, date semantics, truncation, alternative tool, trust status, and rate limits. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the caveats are logically ordered without repetition.

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?

Given one parameter, an output schema, and annotations declaring read-only/idempotent behavior, the description covers the remaining operational ambiguities: how fallback works, what the dates do not mean, how truncation is signaled, when to use get_transcript, and how to treat the returned text. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents session_id precisely, including format and requirements. The description adds the 'ended/interrupted public session' nuance, which is useful context, but no parameter syntax or new field-level meaning is needed beyond the schema.

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 saved parish announcements') tied to a precise session_id, and explicitly excludes fallback to the sermon or full recording. This clearly differentiates it from get_transcript and the broader sermon-reading tools.

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 explicit in-scope behavior (prefer edited announcements section, fall back only to summary tab), explicit negative behavior (no fallback to sermon or full recording), and names get_transcript as the alternative for the stored recording transcript. It also tells the agent to verify current arrangements rather than treat historical announcements as active.

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