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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it discloses that data is served from stored SQLite content with no generation or refresh, and it explains the semantics of the sermon_aggregates_available flag, including that false makes digest counters placeholders.

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 most important information (what it returns, then the date behavior) is front-loaded, and each sentence carries content rather than filler. The sentence about synthesis/digest provenance is somewhat jargon-heavy, but it is not wasted given the flag's importance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be restated, yet the description still flags the one field an agent must interpret (sermon_aggregates_available) and cautions that AI-generated thoughts are orientation material. Combined with the source-of-data note, this is nearly complete for a single-optional-parameter read 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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the default-to-today behavior and names the Europe/Warsaw timezone, but the schema already specifies 'Warsaw calendar date' and the YYYY-MM-DD pattern, so the added meaning is marginal.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns an already-prepared public /dzisiaj briefing') and enumerates its contents (daily thought, readings, patrons, name days, homilies, sermon links). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_sermon, get_ai_study, or search_msza_ai without needing their schemas.

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?

It explains the date parameter usage ('omit it to use today') and what the payload contains, which implies the use case. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_sermon or search_msza_ai, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving selection to inference.

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