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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the output is grouped and ordered by week, includes human-readable week labels, and reflects weekly revenue totals. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or how weeks are bounded (Monday vs Sunday start).

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?

Structure is front-loaded with headers, but for a two-parameter read-only endpoint the markdown is padded: 'Perfect for tracking week-over-week performance trends' and the monitoring/reporting bullets largely repeat the Overview. Several sentences do not earn their place.

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 'What You Get' section usefully compensates by describing the return shape (weekly totals, week labels, weekly ordering). The main remaining gap is the ambiguity of what constitutes a 'week' (start day, timezone) and behavior on empty or reversed ranges.

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%, so both `from` and `to` are already documented as ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD in the schema. The description only restates 'provide a date range (from and to dates)' without adding parsing, timezone, or boundary semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb+resource+grouping dimension: 'weekly aggregated sales and booking data broken down by week.' This implicitly separates it from siblings like post_analytics_hotels and post_analytics_markets (which group by hotel/market), but those siblings are never named, so an agent must infer the distinction from the grouping dimension alone.

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 'When to Use' section gives scenario context (dashboards, WoW comparisons, reporting, monitoring), which is useful but generic and largely restates the overview. It offers no when-not-to-use guidance and never names the sibling analytics tools (post_analytics_hotels, post_analytics_markets, post_analytics_report) that an agent must choose between.

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