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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only thematic content context and no new behavioral detail (e.g., ordering, grouping of books), which is an acceptable but unremarkable contribution given the annotation coverage.

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 largely restates the title and then repeats the same idea in a second, run-on sentence mixing content lists (plans, search, daily readings). It is padded rather than front-loaded, and the actionable purpose (enumerate books) is buried.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the essentials are present, but it omits any indication of what the listing returns or how it relates to the book-reading siblings. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 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 conveys that this concerns 'the whole books in the Library' that are read passage by passage, naming the actual works (Meditations, Enchiridion, Seneca's letters). However, it never states a clean verb+resource like 'list the books available' and does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as stoics_list_readings or stoics_read_book, so the agent must infer the listing behavior from the name.

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 guidance on when to call this versus stoics_list_readings, stoics_read_book, or stoics_search_readings. It describes the content of the library but leaves the selection condition entirely to inference from the tool name.

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