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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one genuine behavioural addition is that results are ranked by best match, but it says nothing about result count, snippet content, or empty-match behaviour.

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 title is restated verbatim in the first sentence, and the second sentence is a catalogue blurb covering sibling capabilities (plans, original text lookup, whole books) that does not help invoke this tool. Roughly half the text is filler that should be cut.

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 one-parameter, read-only search with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition is minimally sufficient to call the tool. It still leaves unanswered what a result looks like and how the query is interpreted, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents 'q' with examples ('kindness or Shabbat'), so the description adds no query syntax, matching semantics, or multi-word behaviour beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first clause gives a specific verb+resource ('Search the curated readings') with a ranking behaviour ('best match first'), which is better than a tautology. However, the second sentence is product-family boilerplate ('daily readings, plans, search and original text lookup; whole books from the Library') that describes the whole Talmud suite rather than this tool, and it never distinguishes this search tool from siblings like talmud_get_reading, talmud_list_readings, or talmud_get_talmud_text.

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?

'Best match first' hints at ranked search results, but there is no statement of when to use this versus talmud_list_readings (browse) or talmud_get_reading (fetch one), and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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