Church Year

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot: the output is rule-based with no generated text, and the spine-detection heuristic (books read on three or more consecutive Sundays, longest run named). It does not discuss cost or pagination, but none are implied here.

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?

One densely packed sentence, but front-loaded with the verb and date-range scope and ordered from per-Sunday facts to aggregate findings. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape — and it does, naming every returned field group and the derived spine concept. Combined with 100% parameter coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the focus enum and the weekday-to-next-Sunday rule. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond hinting that 'focus' narrows where the spine is sought, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Lays out a run of Sundays from a start date') and then enumerates exactly what each Sunday carries: name, season, color, lectionary year, appointed readings, feasts, and book-runs. That enumeration distinguishes it from the single-date siblings (readings_for_sunday, season_for_date, upcoming_feast_days) without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the composite output (planning a multi-Sunday series), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing guidance against the single-date siblings. An agent can infer this tool supersedes the siblings for a run, but must infer it rather than being told.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the source is public domain, output is "citations only, never another translation", include_text pulls in WEB or KJV passage text, and weekday dates roll forward to the next Sunday.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the input modes and the optional text behavior. Nothing is wasted, though the single long first sentence packs several constraints together and could be split for readability.

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 no output schema, the description usefully states what is returned (readings plus alternatives, optionally passage text) and documents defaults for date, year and include_text. It is close to complete for an agent; the main omission is guidance on which sibling to choose when the user asks more broadly about a season or feast.

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 baseline is 3. The description does add real meaning for translation (only WEB or KJV, both public domain, citations never from another translation) and clarifies include_text, but date/occasion/year semantics largely restate what the schema already documents.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("Returns the appointed Bible readings") plus explicit scope: Sunday/major feast from the three-year Sunday lectionary of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. It also names the exact contents returned (first reading, psalm, second reading, gospel, with alternatives), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like season_for_date or upcoming_feast_days.

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 clearly tells the agent how to select a day: give a date, or an occasion like "advent-1" with a year of A/B/C, and notes that a weekday without its own lessons rolls to the next Sunday. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as upcoming_feast_days or season_for_date, leaving routing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default timezone (Mountain Time) and the fact that a fixed default date is used when no date is supplied, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing error behavior for out-of-range dates.

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?

It is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns where a date falls...') before the enumeration of returned fields. The long list of outputs is dense but each item earns its place because there is no output schema to carry that information.

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 no output schema, the description must shoulder the full burden of describing return values, and it does so exhaustively (season, week, observance, color, church year, lectionary year, Easter and Pascha dates). Combined with the schema's parameter documentation, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 the single parameter's format (YYYY-MM-DD), valid range (1583-4099), and Mountain Time default are all already documented in the schema. The description merely repeats the default, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond the structured field, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Returns where a date falls in the Western church year') and enumerates the exact data returned: season, week, observance, liturgical color, lectionary year, and Easter/Pascha dates. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools (plan_sermon_series, readings_for_sunday, upcoming_feast_days), which are planning/lectionary-lookup tools rather than a single-date calendar resolver.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement and the default-to-today behavior, but the description never states when to choose this over siblings like readings_for_sunday or upcoming_feast_days, nor any when-not conditions. The agent can infer intent but must reason about routing itself.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it applies 1979 BCP transfer rules that move feasts off Sundays or out of Holy Week/Easter Week, which materially affects the output.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the liturgical rules, then the optional traditions. The feast enumeration is long but earns its place by defining scope; no filler sentences.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does mention 'each day's color', hinting at output fields, though it does not describe the full record shape. Adequate for a read-only listing tool with fully documented parameters.

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 goes further by explaining what the optional inclusions actually mean (

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lists the dated feasts, fasts and holy days in a window') and enumerates the concrete contents (Ash Wednesday, Holy Week, Easter, etc.). An agent can distinguish this from season_for_date or readings_for_sunday immediately.

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 window-based framing implies usage, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over season_for_date (single-date season lookup) or readings_for_sunday (lectionary readings). The agent must infer the boundary from the resource names alone.

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