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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world call, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the report is editorially curated, section-grouped, and includes an overview, which tells the agent what kind of content to expect. It stops short of noting pagination, size, or behavior when a week has no report.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and content shape, followed by the usage condition. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, content structure, and parameter behavior. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (invalid or non-existent week) and whether a report is guaranteed for every week, which an agent might need.

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% and the single parameter already documents the ISO week format and the omit-for-latest behavior. The description's 'omit week for the latest' restates the schema rather than adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get AIHOT's weekly report) and describes the payload composition: curated events from the dailies, grouped by section, with an overview. The phrase 'chosen from its dailies' implicitly distinguishes it from aihot_get_daily and aihot_get_monthly, so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition: use it for 'what happened this week or in a given ISO week' and omit the parameter for the latest. It does not name alternatives (e.g. aihot_get_daily for a single day) or state exclusions, so it falls just short of the explicit when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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