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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the return type (markdown) and the canonical URL inclusion, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it remains silent on side effects, permissions, or any restrictions (e.g., whether the latest digest is always available). For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and content scope; the second covers the return format. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is nearly complete. It explains what the digest contains, the typical availability (Sundays), and what the caller receives. The only minor gap is not stating that this is a read-only operation, but that is easily inferred from the semantics.

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 parameter description already specifies the optional date format and default behavior. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description clearly states the tool's specific verb (get), resource (weekly digest), and scope (Sundays, weekly content categories). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_daily_briefing and get_daily_podcast by naming the exact content format and frequency.

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 description implies usage by describing the weekly digest's content and the optional date parameter, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over the daily briefing, podcast, or blog post tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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