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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond the content of the returned reading schedule, which is useful but not additional transparency about side effects or constraints.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the core purpose, then packs in the key output elements and the two main option axes without any filler or repetition.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does well to enumerate the returned data: parsha/holiday name, aliyot with verse ranges/counts, maftir, haftarah, and special readings. Remaining details like defaults and date-range limits are already present in the input schema, so the combination is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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 80%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'Israel vs Diaspora' (clarifying the otherwise undocumented israel parameter) and 'triennial cycle' (reinforcing the triennial flag). It also relates date/end_date to the 'date or date range' concept, giving useful semantic context.

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 identifies the resource ('Torah and Haftarah readings') and the specific output components (aliyah verse ranges, maftir, haftarah, special readings). It is more specific than merely restating the name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_parasha or get_learning_schedules.

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 phrase 'for a date or date range' gives a clear context for when the tool should be used, and the mention of Israel vs Diaspora and triennial cycle signals relevant use-case variations. It does not name alternative tools or provide exclusions, but the usage context is explicit enough for an agent to infer the right scenario.

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