Text of the day

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the rotation is deterministic per date, and the response includes Pāli text, citation, PTS page, translation links and attribution, all offline. It does not mention whether a date outside the canon range fails or clamps, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and the selection rule, with the return contents and offline note following. No filler, though the middle sentence is a dense enumeration that could be split for scanability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so (Pāli/opening line, citation, PTS page, translation links, attribution). Both optional parameters are covered by the schema and the deterministic rotation rule is explained, so an agent can call this correctly without further information.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented including the enum and defaults. The description reinforces that 'verse' is the default and that the date drives deterministic selection, but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (a Dhammapada verse or sutta) plus the selection rule ('fixed rotation through the bundled Pāli canon'), which is enough to tell it apart from search_texts or get_text. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the daily-text framing and the 'default' kind, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative (get_text or search_texts) for retrieving a specific passage rather than today's assigned one.

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