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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the report is curated/edited rather than raw, it is organized by section with an overview, and omitting the week yields the latest. It does not discuss pagination or size, but for a read-only report tool this is solid.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by when to use it and the default. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, default behavior, and the rough shape of the return (sections plus overview). Only finer return details are absent, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the schema already documents the ISO week pattern and the omit-for-latest default. The description reinforces the default behavior and the ISO-week semantics in prose, adding a little clarity for the single optional parameter, though it introduces no format details 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get e/acc's edited weekly report') and characterizes the content precisely: events chosen from dailies, grouped by section, with an overview. The phrase 'chosen from its dailies' implicitly separates it from eacc_get_daily, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It states the use case explicitly ('Use this for what happened this week or in a given ISO week') and gives the default behavior ('omit week for the latest'). It does not name the alternative tools (eacc_get_daily, eacc_get_monthly) or state when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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