get_daily_learnings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving schedule data but doesn't describe important behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/structure of returned data. The description is too minimal for a tool with 6 parameters.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more specific about what type of 'learning schedule' is retrieved (e.g., Torah readings, study cycles).

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 tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the returned data looks like, how to interpret results, or provide context about the Sefaria calendar system. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

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 states the action ('get') and resource ('daily or weekly learning schedule from Sefaria's calendar'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (get_commentaries, get_text, search_texts), which all appear to retrieve different types of content from the same system.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. It mentions retrieving 'daily or weekly learning schedule' but doesn't clarify when to choose this over other content retrieval tools in the same system.

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