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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned content, which is valuable given there is no output schema, and 'the user's own store' implies scope limiting. However it says nothing about failure modes (no report generated for that week), whether the read is idempotent/side-effect free, or auth requirements beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and payload enumerated, followed by the one parameter clarification. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the parameter note is placed after the purpose.

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 correctly enumerates what comes back, and it covers the optional historical-week parameter. The remaining gap is behavior when the requested week has no report or when `week_start` is omitted (presumably current week), which is left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: `week_start` is specifically the Monday that a past report covers, not an arbitrary date. That is a semantic constraint (day-of-week alignment, past-only) an agent would otherwise get wrong from the schema's bare 'e.g. 2026-10-26'.

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+resource ('this week's SeoAiX report for the user's own store') and enumerates the payload (traffic, revenue, keyword changes, actions taken, narrative, priorities), which clearly separates it from siblings like full_seo_audit or get_store_status. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 mention that `week_start` retrieves 'a past report' implies the when-to-use condition (default = current week, provide a date = historical), but there is no explicit routing guidance versus email_seo_report (which presumably sends rather than returns the report) or get_recent_changes. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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