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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it reads 'cached SQLite data only' and never generates or refreshes AI content, clarifying the data source and side-effect profile.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the returned content is compactly listed, and the read-only constraint is stated last without redundancy.

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?

With a single optional parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. The cached-source clarification removes the main remaining ambiguity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the Europe/Warsaw timezone and the YYYY-MM-DD format, going slightly beyond the schema's 'Optional Warsaw calendar date' and reinforcing that omitting the parameter means today.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Load the already-prepared public /dzisiaj briefing'. It then enumerates the distinct content items returned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from the sibling tools get_sermon and search_msza_ai.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: to load the daily briefing for today or a specific date. It also provides an implicit exclusion by noting it 'never generates or refreshes AI content', which signals the tool is not for content creation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when to prefer them, so it misses a 5.

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