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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral cue -- output is line-sized and intended for voice/TTS -- which hints at incremental retrieval, but it never explains pagination across cards or the return shape.

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 title is repeated verbatim (including a doubled period) and followed by an app-store style blurb listing unrelated features (plans, search, Meditations, Enchiridion, Seneca's letters) that do not describe this tool. Sentences are not earning their place.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety, the essentials are present. The remaining gap is the undefined 'card' granularity and its relationship to the other Stoics retrieval tools, which the description should resolve.

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 each of n, date, and reading is documented in the schema with defaults, so the description need not carry parameter meaning. It only loosely gestures at 'today's reading' and 'one line at a time', adding no format or referencing details beyond the schema.

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?

Names the resource (today's reading) and a delivery mode (one line at a time, for voice), but never defines what a 'card' is or how it differs from siblings like stoics_get_reading or stoics_get_today. The second sentence is a product-family blurb, not a statement of this tool's purpose.

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 at all: nothing says when to pick get_card over get_reading, get_today, or read_book, all of which operate on the same corpus. The agent must infer selection from names alone.

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