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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description must add beyond that and does: it explains the data is computed live from synced data, that storedReport carries the saved KPIs/actions from the email/Slack digest when the weekly job ran, that alerts lists the week's alerts, and that endDate shifts the week with the last synced date as default. This is meaningful behavioral context not available in annotations. It does not detail failure modes or the exact response shape, keeping it at a 4.

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 one dense but front-loaded paragraph: it opens with what the digest contains, then live-vs-stored behavior, then usage contexts. Every clause adds information, though the trailing Portuguese tagline is redundant for an English-context description and the sentence is quite long.

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 9-parameter read-only digest with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned sections (movers, anomalies, alerts, quick wins, AI lines, actions) and explains the live-vs-storedReport duality. The main remaining gap is the absence of return format details (e.g., what the markdown vs json structure looks like), which the schema does not cover either.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly, including enums, patterns and defaults. The description adds only a restatement of endDate's default/week-shifting meaning, which the schema also says. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource with full scope: a week-over-week digest listing movers, top queries/pages, anomalies, Google updates, quick wins, technical alerts, AI search and next actions. It is instantly distinguishable from siblings like get_site_summary or generate_seo_report because it names its unique weekly-comparison contents.

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?

It gives explicit usage contexts: "what changed this week", "Monday stand-ups", "a client's weekly update", which tells an agent when to reach for it. It also notes the storedReport behavior when the weekly job has run, adding a condition for interpretation. It does not state an explicit exclusion against other reporting siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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