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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by revealing the reliability flag and instructing the agent to disclose when a date has not been held every year, which goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output contents, and the second sentence adds an essential reliability caveat and user-facing instruction.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description enumerates what is returned—site, city, Hebrew date, reliability—and the schema covers the limit parameter, so an agent has enough information to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter, limit, including its default and bounds, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. The description does not mention limit at all, but the high schema coverage keeps this at the baseline rather than below it.

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 clearly identifies the resource: upcoming hilula dates at tombs of Moroccan tzadikim, and lists the included output fields. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than using an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'retrieves', so it does not fully meet the 'specific verb+resource' bar.

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 'next hilula dates' wording makes the tool's use case clear, and none of the sibling tools overlap with hilulot, so no alternative routing is needed. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use the tool, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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