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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is free. The description still adds real value: 'null is the latest' weeks, the composition of the review, and a strong grounding constraint that each change must be explained from its stated reason and no other may be invented. It does not note that changes can later be reverted (undo_review_change exists as a sibling), which is the one behavioral thread left dangling.

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?

Front-loads the trigger, then the payload, then the alternative, then the reasoning rule — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The middle enumeration is dense but each clause names a distinct field of the review, so it earns its 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needs no explanation, and the tool is a single optional parameter read — low complexity, well covered for when to call it and how to interpret week=null. The remaining gap is the undisclosed 1–26 week range and the lack of any pointer to undo_review_change when a user reacts to a change.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it delivers the single most important semantic: null means the most recent week. It does not explain that the integer is a program week number bounded to 1–26, so an agent must read the schema to learn the valid window.

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 and resource ('Reads the Sunday review of a program week') and then enumerates what the review contains — sessions, volume, new bests, pace, next-week changes and reasons. It also explicitly separates itself from the lookalike sibling get_today, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the person asks how their week went or what changes next week') plus an explicit exclusion and named alternative ('Do not use for today's session; use get_today'). Both the use case and the anti-use case are spelled out rather than inferred.

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