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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the returned record (rank, bitcoin move, bot changes, page URL), which is important since there is no output schema. It omits error behavior for unknown weeks, but for a read-only lookup this is solid.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the payload fields. Every clause conveys information, though the fragmentary phrasing (no verb) reads slightly like a data label rather than a description.

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-only lookup, the definition covers what is returned and the schema covers the input fully. The gaps are the lack of differentiation from get_weekly_results and no note on behavior for weeks that don't exist, both minor for a tool this simple.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, including a regex pattern, maxLength, and an example ('2026-W43'). The description adds nothing about the week parameter, so the schema does all the work; baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource precisely ('one logbook week') and enumerates what it contains: rank, bitcoin's move, bot changes, page URL. That is far more specific than the bare name 'get_week'. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_weekly_results or get_summary, so an agent can't fully rule out overlap.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetching a single, specific week's logbook entry. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_weekly_results or get_summary, and no guidance on what to do for an out-of-range or future week. The required ISO-week parameter hints at the single-week scope, but the agent must infer it.

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