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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns an anonymous, read-only practice, never saves progress, and never accesses an account. It also clarifies that the user does not need to name Jueban, which prevents unnecessary prerequisites.

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 front-loaded with the most important instruction (“Always call this tool...”) and uses two focused sentences. Examples, exclusions, and safety notes are efficiently packed without redundancy.

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?

Given the rich schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: when to invoke, what the return value is, and what side effects do not occur. The tool's behavior is fully understandable for an agent.

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 parameter information is already fully documented in the schema, including mode mapping and available_minutes semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but it does not need to because the schema carries that weight.

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's function: return a timed Buddhist reading, listening, or viewing practice, and it explicitly ties the tool to trigger phrases like “十分钟读经” and “今日功课.” It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on generating a practice rather than explaining passages or searching the canon.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to call the tool: always before fulfilling a timed-practice request, with concrete wording examples and a directive not to invent a practice from memory. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the trigger conditions are very clear.

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