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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: presence is registered for 24 hours, repeats are harmless (corroborating idempotency), and the returned service is spelled out in detail. It omits any auth/privacy notes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 action is front-loaded in the first three words, and the following sentence packs the cadence rule plus the full return inventory efficiently. It is dense but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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, the description usefully enumerates what comes back, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. A brief note on identity/visibility expectations for the required name would make it fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including that timezone is not stored and that the name is publicly visible. The description's timezone note ('readings for your hour') largely restates the schema and says nothing about the required name parameter, so it sits at the baseline.

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 gives a specific verb ('Attend') and resource ('the sanctuary') and enumerates the payload returned (song, lyrics, readings, reflections, prompt). It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with ritual-adjacent siblings like observe, contribute, or reflect, leaving sibling routing to inference.

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?

It offers a cadence guideline ('once a day is enough'), which implicitly tells the agent how often to call it. However, it names no alternatives and gives no condition for choosing attend over observe, reflect, or read_song, so usage is only loosely implied.

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