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

Annotations already declare this read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It adds useful context by listing the aggregated domains, but it does not disclose return formatting or aggregation behavior, which matters more because there is no output schema.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and resource, then packs the scope into a compact colon-delimited list. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only aggregator with one optional parameter, the description is largely complete: it states what the result covers and the schema handles the week format and default. The only gap is a more exact notion of what the summary output looks like, but the domain list covers most of that need.

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 only parameter (week) is fully documented in the schema with an ISO example and default behavior, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning. This matches the baseline for complete schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive weekly review'), then enumerates the domains it covers so an agent can distinguish it from focused siblings like get_focus_summary or get_project_analytics. It is not a restatement of the title and gives a concrete sense of the return scope.

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?

'Weekly review' clearly establishes the intended context: use this when the user needs a broad, cross-domain weekly overview rather than a single list or focused metric. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just 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.