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 fully covered without the description. The description adds only a vague "line by line / a passage at a time" hint at output granularity that is too ambiguous to be actionable, and says nothing about what a reading or plan actually contains.

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?

It is short, but the second sentence is catalog-level marketing copy about the whole Talmud offering that does not help an agent select or invoke this specific tool, so it does not earn its place. The genuinely useful content is nil, making this sparse rather than concise.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers the minimum needed to invoke it. However it omits the one thing that matters here: how this differs from the six sibling talmud_ tools, leaving the agent unable to route confidently.

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 the id parameter already documents that it accepts a reading/plan id from /readings or a plan name like "japji". The description contributes no additional syntax, format, or constraint information beyond the schema, 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?

"Talmud Scroller. One reading or plan, line by line" essentially restates the tool name and title without stating what a "reading or plan" retrieval actually returns. The second sentence describes the whole Talmud product suite (daily readings, plans, search, whole books) rather than this tool, so it fails to distinguish itself from siblings like talmud_get_talmud_text or talmud_get_today.

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 guidance or named alternative. The trailing phrase "whole books from the Library, read a passage at a time" faintly gestures at talmud_read_book as a contrasting sibling, but it never states a condition for choosing this tool over that one, leaving the agent to infer.

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