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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and reproducibility profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the 'same as the app shows today' framing, with no detail on response shape, format, or edge cases.

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 is brief and front-loads the core purpose, which is good. But the trailing sentence describing plans, search, whole books, and passage reading names features this tool does not perform, adding noise rather than earning its 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 simple zero-required-param read tool with annotations covering its safety profile and no output schema, the definition is close to adequate. The generic boilerplate about search and library features introduces mild ambiguity about scope that a cleaner description would avoid.

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 single optional date parameter is fully documented in the schema (YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to UTC today). The description offers no additional 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 states a clear verb+resource: retrieving today's Talmud reading, shown line by line. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like talmud_get_reading or talmud_get_card, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which to prefer.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The second sentence lists family capabilities (plans, search, library, reading passages) but never says when this specific tool is the right choice over those siblings.

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