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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of pagination, result volume, ordering, or what 'all' actually means in the response.

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?

It is short, but the second sentence is a semicolon-heavy run-on that enumerates unrelated features rather than front-loading the tool's own scope. Length is fine; the content is not well earned per sentence.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only place to explain what the list contains (counts, ordering, whether it aggregates multiple collections). Instead it drifts into describing other tools' functionality, leaving the return shape and scope unspecified.

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 disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The prose mentions filtering-adjacent concepts (plans, search) but no parameter exists for them.

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 merely restates the title ("All curated daily readings and plans") without a clear verb+resource statement. The second sentence mixes in capabilities of sibling tools ("search and original text lookup", "whole books from the Library, read a passage at a time") that belong to search_readings, get_talmud_text, and read_book, muddying rather than clarifying what list_readings itself does.

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 indication of when to call this tool versus siblings like get_reading, get_today, or search_readings. The description enumerates other capabilities without stating any condition or alternative to route the agent, leaving selection to inference.

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