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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior, and the description adds useful context about what the summary contains. It also discloses the important behavioral trait that the tool starts no new measurement, though it does not discuss auth requirements, caching, or freshness beyond the previous comparable measurement.

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 front-loaded with the core resource and then packs the section list densely into one long sentence without filler. It is efficient, but the single semicolon-heavy sentence makes it somewhat harder to scan than a structured list would.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the full scope of the weekly summary, and the output schema handles return-value structure while annotations cover safety semantics. The schema fully documents the sole parameter, so there is no material gap an agent would need filled before calling it.

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% for the single site parameter, and the schema already explains the multi-site requirement and single-site omission. The description only reinforces the notion of 'one site' and adds no additional syntax or selection semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly defines the resource as a weekly summary of one site and enumerates the sections it contains, so an agent can tell it is a composite read-only report rather than a single metric. It also distinguishes itself from measurement-triggering tools by stating 'It starts no new measurement,' but it does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings such as get_what_changed or get_next_steps.

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 implied: it is a weekly summary and does not start a new measurement, which signals it is for reading an existing digest rather than triggering work. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives for cases where a more targeted tool would be better.

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