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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful provenance context beyond that: the report is "edited" and curated from the dailies, and is grouped by section with an overview. It stops short of any auth/rate-limit or freshness caveats.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first defines what is returned, the second defines when to call it. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so (events grouped by section, overview). It could go slightly further on section granularity or format, but for a single optional-parameter read tool this is nearly complete.

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 optional `week` parameter is fully documented with its ISO pattern in the schema. The description only reinforces the default (omit = latest), adding no format or edge-case detail 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get BITHOT's edited weekly report") plus a concrete content model: the week's most important events chosen from its dailies, grouped by section, with an overview. This clearly separates it from the daily/monthly siblings.

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?

"Use this for what happened this week or in a given ISO week; omit week for the latest" gives clear when-to-use and default behavior. It does not explicitly state when to prefer bithot_get_daily or bithot_get_monthly, so sibling routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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