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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it returns Hebrew with English translation if available, and includes a strong instruction to always cite from the text actually read, never from memory. This goes beyond the static annotation by guiding agent behavior and disclosing output content.

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 description is extremely concise: two sentences of substantive information. It front-loades the core purpose, provides examples, and ends with a critical usage rule. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler, making it an exemplar of efficient writing.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It states what is returned, gives reference format examples, and includes an important instruction about citing from the actual text. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from using the tool correctly.

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% with the 'ref' parameter described as a Sefaria-format reference in English. The description enhances this by listing concrete examples (e.g., 'Genesis 1:1', 'Berakhot 2a') that clarify acceptable formats and naming conventions. This adds meaning beyond the schema's generic description, lifting it above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the text of a Sefaria reference (Hebrew + English if available), which is a specific verb+resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sefaria_search' (searching) and 'sefaria_links' (related links) by focusing on the actual text content for a given reference.

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?

The description provides clear context on what this tool is used for (getting text for a specific reference) and gives concrete examples of valid reference formats. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the examples and emphasis on citing from the actual text imply usage for known references. No exclusions are stated, fitting the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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