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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the default behavior (latest week), the accepted week format (ISO like '2026-W38'), and the kinds of facts returned. However, it does not describe the output shape, whether the report is empty for weeks with no data, or any limits. The disclosed behavior is adequate for a simple read-only report but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core facts of the report, then provides the parameter behavior and format. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and the ISO example is compact and useful.

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?

For a tool with a single optional string parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is largely complete: it lists what is returned and how to specify the week parameter. The only gap is that it does not explicitly describe the response format or behavior for an unknown week, but the listed facts largely cover the expected content.

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 input schema provides only a bare 'week' string with no description and 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain the parameter's semantics well: the latest week is used by default, and a specific week can be supplied in ISO format with a concrete example ('2026-W38'). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema, though it never names the parameter explicitly.

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 clearly indicates the tool returns the facts contained in the weekly Silence Report and enumerates the specific contents: models observed, epochs closed, negative snapshots, proofs, and longest silences. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' but the resource and scope are clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, though the report-level facts set it apart from more targeted tools like get_silence_proof.

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 description explains the week parameter's behavior (latest by default, or a specific ISO week), but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_silence_proof, verify_seal, or explain. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool routing. The usage context is implied by the report contents rather than stated.

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