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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that the result is bounded to exactly current + next week, which tells the agent the data is a rolling two-week window. It doesn't mention whether results are cached or how the week boundary is determined, but with an output schema present those gaps are minor.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the returned scope front-loaded and the usage note second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema defining the return shape, the remaining burden on the description is small. It covers what is returned and why the agent should care, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly implies the call is argument-free by not referencing any inputs.

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: returns the current and next week ids plus their date ranges. The scope (two weeks, ids and ranges) is concrete enough that an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not differentiate itself from the nearest sibling, get_planning_context, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 second sentence gives a clear call-to-action: use these week ids when filtering or creating weekly tasks, which covers the main downstream use cases. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to call it, so the agent must infer routing against get_planning_context.

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