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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: no email is sent, nothing is changed, empty sections return null, the upcoming list is capped at 10 with totalCount and manualCount, and the return shape is markdown plus a fenced JSON block with app links. It stops short of describing auth or workspace/timezone prerequisites.

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 opening clause is well front-loaded and every detail is arguably load-bearing, but the body is one ~200-word sentence built from nested parentheticals, which makes it hard to parse and pushes key facts (the cap, null behavior) deep into the middle.

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 composite digest tool with an output schema, the description covers section-by-section content, the 7-day window semantics, null handling, list caps, return format and the no-side-effect guarantee. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly with or without weekOf.

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% for the single weekOf param, so the schema baseline is 3. The description goes further by scoping the parameter's effect: weekOf selects only the Search Console comparison days while review posts, keywords and AI checks are always current, which the schema does not say.

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 a specific resource (the Monday weekly brief delivered by email) and enumerates its four sections plus the suggested actions, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. Differentiation from siblings is only gesture-level via the trailing 'Related:' list rather than a condition-based contrast with get_search_performance/get_ai_visibility.

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 rather than stated: 'Related: get_search_performance, get_ai_visibility, search_posts' points at the component tools, and 'weekOf picks the Search days; posts in review, tracked keywords and AI answers are always the current ones' clarifies scope. But there is no explicit 'use this when you want the digest; use X instead when you want only…' routing, so the agent must infer when this digest beats its siblings.

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