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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only "same as the app shows today," which is vague and does not disclose what content is returned or how the default date is resolved beyond what the schema says.

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 trailing catalog of Gurbani features (“daily shabad, plans, search, Ang and shabad lookup; whole books from the Library”) describes other tools and consumes most of the text without earning its place. The actual scope, today's reading, is buried in a four-word fragment.

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?

With annotations and a fully described schema, this is a simple read tool, but the description still leaves the core question unanswered: what is a "reading" and how does it relate to get_reading/list_readings. The appended feature list adds noise rather than completing 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% and the single optional date parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics about the date format or default behavior.

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 sentence gives a resource ("Today's reading, line by line") but no verb beyond an implicit fetch, and "reading" is undefined while siblings get_reading and list_readings exist. The second sentence is a generic catalog of unrelated app features (search, Ang, shabad, books) that does not describe this tool at all, actively muddying what it returns.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and the nearest sibling, get_reading, is neither named nor contrasted. Nothing tells the agent whether to call get_today with an explicit date versus using get_reading.

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