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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already given, the description still adds useful behavior: it reads published files only, invalid formats error, and a week with no published file errors while naming the index (the agent learns the failure mode is informative, not silent). No auth, rate, or cost details are offered.

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-loaded with the outcome, then the parameter rule, then the error cases, then the scope exclusions — a sensible order. The fragment style is dense and mostly earns its place, though the week format and empty-string rule are each stated twice in slightly different words.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (one week's report versus the latest index), what selects each mode, and how failures surface. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing material is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents the YYYY-Www format with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by defining the error semantics tied to the value ('a week that is not YYYY-Www is an error') and by confirming empty-string handling.

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 ('One published weekly Silence Report, or the latest report index') and immediately bounds the scope. It also rules out adjacent resources ('not the live status and not one model's proof'), letting an agent separate it from crovia_status and get_silence_proof without opening schemas.

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 concrete selection rules: omit week or pass an empty string for the latest index, supply YYYY-Www for one week's facts, and it explicitly excludes live status and single-model proof. It stops short of naming the sibling tools that cover those excluded cases, so the routing is described rather than spelled out.

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