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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes one genuine behavioral fact — the output is 'one line at a time, for voice,' implying TTS-oriented plain text — but says nothing about pagination, how many lines exist, or what happens when n exceeds the reading length.

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 first sentence duplicates the title verbatim (including a stray double period), and the second sentence enumerates capabilities — 'daily shabad, plans, search, Ang and shabad lookup; whole books from the Library' — that belong to sibling tools, not this one, making the scope read as broader than it is.

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?

All three parameters are optional, there is no output schema, and the tool name is non-obvious, so the description carries the real burden of explaining what is returned. It never defines 'card', never explains how n, date, and reading interact, and the scope-listing second sentence actively muddies the picture.

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%: n, date, and reading all carry descriptions with defaults, and the reading param already points at list_readings. The description adds no parameter semantics 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 verb/resource pair 'get_card' is opaque on its own, and the description only clarifies it by restating the title: 'Today's reading one line at a time, for voice.' That conveys the deliverable (one line of the day's reading, formatted for speech), but it never says what a 'card' is nor distinguishes this from siblings get_reading and 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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the alternatives. An agent choosing between get_card, get_reading, and get_today gets no signal about which to pick, and the trailing 'Gurbani: daily shabad, plans, search...' blurb describes the whole server's scope rather than this tool's.

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