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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content details (what the briefing includes) but no further behavioral traits such as defaults, error handling, or data sources.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that lists all key output elements without fluff. Every phrase earns its place, making the tool easy to scan and understand.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the returned content, and the input schema documents defaults for date and location. It could mention output formatting or behavior when no location is given, but the current level is adequate 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 71%, so the schema handles most parameters. The description mentions candle-lighting and havdalah times, which relate to candle_minutes and havdalah_minutes, but does not add meaning to those two undocumented parameters; it adds little beyond the schema.

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 a specific resource ('a ready-to-read Friday summary for a location') and enumerates its components (candle-lighting, havdalah, parsha, haftarah, verse, holiday). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_shabbat_times or get_parasha, which cover only one piece.

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 provides clear context: it is a consolidated Friday briefing for a location. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the bundled nature of the output makes its use case evident.

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