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 profile is covered. The description adds a modest behavioral note about the sequential 'follow next' flow continuing across chapters, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or response shape. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 marketing tagline is repeated (title restated as the first sentence), and phrases like 'plans, search, and the whole...' are vague filler. The useful content ('read a passage at a time', follow-next flow) is there but buried amid promotional framing rather than being front-loaded.

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 tool with four fully documented parameters and complete annotations, the definition is adequate but not complete: it never clarifies its relationship to the other stoics_* read tools. No output schema exists, so the absence of return-value description is acceptable, but the sibling ambiguity is 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 book, section, n, and ref are all fully documented in the schema itself (including ref's override behavior and default daf handling). 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 description conveys that it reads a whole book (Meditations, Enchiridion, Seneca's letters) 'a passage at a time' and supports sequential 'follow next' navigation, which is a real verb+resource. However, it leans heavily on branding ('Stoic Scroller') and never clearly distinguishes this from siblings like stoics_get_reading or stoics_get_today, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 description gives a hint about sequential continuation ('Follow next for the next passage; it carries on into the next chapter') but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing against stoics_get_reading, stoics_get_today, or stoics_search_readings. An agent must guess which sibling to pick for a given intent.

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