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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: days still in progress are marked partial, alert flags are longitudinal (e.g. iron running low, allergen lapsed, sleep debt), and recommendations are capped at the top 3. It does not mention caching or how 'the week' is bounded (calendar vs rolling), which is a minor 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('the weekly picture') and then enumerates return contents. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical examples make it longer than strictly necessary.

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 value, and it does so thoroughly — coverage of all five output categories. It stops short of specifics an agent might want (period boundaries, units, or how alerts are ranked), so not quite a 5.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly describes a no-argument call.

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 verb+resource ('get the weekly picture') and enumerates the concrete contents: 7-day nutrient totals vs targets, allergen exposure grid, per-day sleep totals, longitudinal alert flags, and top-3 meal recommendations. This clearly separates it from the single-day siblings (get_today, get_status), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 7-day scope — an agent can infer 'use this for a weekly rollup, use get_today for a single day' — but the description never states when to choose this over get_today, get_status, or suggest_meal, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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