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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the vague 'one line at a time' framing and discloses nothing about what a 'card' contains or how scrolling/pagination behaves. It does not contradict annotations, but adds little beyond them.

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 text repeats the title verbatim, contains a doubled period ('voice..'), and appends a generic multi-tool suite blurb ('daily shabad, plans, search, Ang and shabad lookup; whole books...') that has no bearing on calling this tool. Wording is wasted rather than front-loaded with useful specifics.

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?

The schema is complete and annotations cover the safety profile, and there is no output schema to explain, so the core requirements are met. However, for a tool whose only distinguishing concept is 'a card,' the description never defines that concept or routes the agent away from sibling tools, leaving a real gap.

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 all three parameters (n, date, reading) are fully documented in the schema with defaults and formats. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, 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 first sentence, 'Scroll the Gurbani. Today's reading one line at a time, for voice..', essentially restates the title verbatim and never clarifies that the tool returns a paginated 'card' of today's reading. It offers no differentiation from close siblings like gurbani_get_today or gurbani_get_reading. The second sentence is generic suite boilerplate covering all Gurbani tools rather than this one.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative. The phrase 'for voice' hints at a voice-use context but does not tell the agent when to pick this over gurbani_get_today or gurbani_get_card's peers. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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