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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so: "Read-only; sends nothing" clearly states the operation does not mutate state or emit notifications. It also describes the report's composition, though it doesn't cover formatting or size limits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence delivers the purpose and the report's contents, followed by a short behavioral tag. No filler; each clause about the report contents maps to an actual output field.

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 must communicate what comes back, and it lists the report sections and safety posture. For a zero-parameter read-only report this is essentially complete, minor gaps only around output format.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The schema is trivially complete at 100% 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 gives a specific verb ("Draft") and resource (a plain-English 7-day report) and enumerates its contents: actions checked, auto-approvals, escalations, top ask kinds, and rule suggestions. Combined with the '[approval-rules]' scope marker, an agent can distinguish it from the many other '*_weekly_report' siblings, which cover different domains.

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 — you call it to get a weekly summary of how your rules performed — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as approve_get_rules or approve_check_action. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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