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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the content is AI-generated narrative rather than raw data, and access requires a Pro plan — a real availability constraint an agent should know before calling.

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 tight sentences: the first identifies the resource and its payload, the second front-loads the default behavior and plan requirement. 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still usefully previews the sections returned. The main remaining gap is edge-case behavior — what happens if no review exists for the requested week, or when the user lacks Pro access.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single weekStart parameter is fully documented including the YYYY-MM-DD format and the omit-for-latest behavior. The description's 'latest week by default' merely restates the schema default, adding no new semantics, so the baseline of 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 (the AI-written weekly review) and enumerates its contents — narrative summary, highlights, goal reports, activity comparisons — which clearly separates it from raw-data siblings like get_summary or get_status. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

'Latest week by default' and 'for a past week' give implied context for when the tool applies, and 'Pro feature' signals a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_summary or other reporting siblings, and no statement of when not to use it.

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