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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive traitsabb. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the return categories, including that sources come 'with text', and does not contradict any annotation.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence followed by useful examples. The example list is somewhat long, but every part of the main sentence 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?

The description is adequate for the core holiday-sources use case.output, but it leaves the likely date-related semantics of israel and the meaning of max_sources unexplained. With no output schema and two unexplained parameters, more detail is needed for full completeness.

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 only 33%, yet the description only glosses the 'holiday' parameter through context and examples. The israel and max_sources parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving their effect on the return value opaque.

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 tool returns holiday-specific data—dates, description, Torah/Haftarah readings, and classical sources—for the next or named Jewish holiday. It is clear about scope and content, and examples reinforce valid inputs大方, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings by name.

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 a clear use case: Jewish holidays, either the next one or a named one. It does not, however, explain when to choose this over related tools like get_torah_reading or get_jewish_calendar, so it misses the explicit exclusions needed for a 5.

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