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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'same as the app shows today' and line-by-line granularity; it says nothing about output shape, number of lines returned, or date-range behavior.

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 second sentence is a catalogue blurb covering the entire Gurbani tool family (shabad, plans, search, Ang, Library books) rather than this tool, so roughly half the text does not earn its place. The opening is front-loaded, but the padding dilutes it.

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?

For a one-optional-param read-only tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition is minimally viable. It could usefully say what a 'reading' returns and how the date argument interacts with the 'today' framing, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

Single optional parameter with 100% schema coverage, including the YYYY-MM-DD format and the UTC default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 opening states a clear resource and scope: today's reading, rendered line by line like the app. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as gurbani_get_reading or gurbani_get_card, which an agent must guess between.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives. The tail sentence lists sibling capabilities (search, Ang lookup, Library books) without saying which condition selects this tool over them.

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