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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful clarification — "Nothing stored" — which preempts the misleading "create_*" name by confirming no persistence occurs and no external calls are made. It still doesn't describe the shape of the returned 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 short sentences with zero filler: the build action and input list come first, and the non-persistence caveat is appended where it matters most. Nothing is padded or restated.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool actually returns (a text report, structured sections, a template id?) and how it relates to render_report_text. It covers inputs adequately but leaves the output contract and sibling separation to inference.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It names four of the six concepts (accomplishments, hours_logged, blockers, next_week), and the remaining two (client_name, week_start) are implied by "weekly client report," but no format details (date format for week_start, hours units) are supplied.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ("Build a weekly client report") and enumerates the input material it draws on (accomplishments, hours, blockers, next-week plans). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like render_report_text or report_templates, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone whether this builds, renders, or templates the report.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools that are obvious alternatives (render_report_text, report_templates, week_bounds). The only contextual signal is the trailing "Nothing stored" clause, which implies a pure computation but does not say when to pick this over rendering a template.

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