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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this (no ordering, pagination, or scope disclosure), so it provides no value on top of the structured data, though it does not contradict the annotations.

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 opening sentence duplicates the title verbatim, and the second clause piles in unrelated Gurbani feature keywords that do not describe this tool. Content is not front-loaded with useful information over noise.

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 parameterless read-only list tool this could be complete with a short, accurate statement, but the text conflates multiple sibling tools' features and never explains what a 'book' is or how results relate to read_book/list_readings. The agent is left with ambiguity about the tool's actual output.

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 document; the schema is 100% covered and empty. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 largely restates the title ('The whole books in the Library that can be read a passage at a time'), so it reads as a tautology. The appended 'Gurbani: daily shabad, plans, search, Ang and shabad lookup' describes features belonging to sibling tools (get_shabad, get_ang, search_readings), muddying rather than clarifying this tool's purpose of listing books.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no disambiguation from siblings like list_readings or read_book. An agent cannot infer from the text whether to call this or list_readings for a given request.

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