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. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no return format, no pagination, no scope). Given full annotation coverage, a middle score 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 description is bloated with suite-level branding ('Talmud Scroller') and a generic feature list ('search and original text lookup; whole books from the Library, read a passage at a time') that belongs to other tools, not this lister. Sentences are repeated/overlapping rather than front-loaded with the key fact.

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-param list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the resource being listed but omits what the returned list actually contains or how it differs from sibling retrieval tools. 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, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline for a 0-param tool is 4; the description neither needs nor omits parameter detail.

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 phrase 'All curated daily readings and plans' implies a listing of readings and plans, which is on-target for the name talmud_list_readings. However, no explicit verb ('List') is given and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like talmud_list_books, talmud_get_today, or talmud_search_readings. The intent is discernible but vague.

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/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives. The trailing feature text ('daily readings, plans, search and original text lookup; whole books from the Library') describes the whole app family, not when an agent should pick this list tool over the other talmud_* tools.

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