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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the content of the response (full reference, aliyot, haftarah, next date) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements or error behavior, which are not relevant here. It is consistent with annotations and adds some value.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Details for a weekly Torah portion by name') and then lists the return fields. There is no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, input format, and return fields. It does not discuss edge cases or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 100% (parasha name in English transliteration). The description adds concrete examples (Noach, Lech Lecha, Ki Tisa) that clarify the expected input format, providing practical value beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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 states the resource (weekly Torah portion) and specifies the exact details returned: full reference, aliyot, haftarah, and next reading date. It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_torah_reading or parsha_study_pack; the examples and scope make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when details about a specific parasha are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_torah_reading or parsha_study_pack. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, so the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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