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 real value beyond that: the content is curated/edited rather than raw, it is grouped by section with an overview, and omitting week returns the latest. It says nothing about freshness lag, volume, or auth, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the resource and content shape, then appends usage and the default in a single clause. No filler, no repetition of the name or schema.

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 explaining the return shape, and it does so at a high level (events grouped by section plus an overview). Read-only annotations cover safety and the sole optional parameter is fully documented, leaving only minor gaps such as result size or ordering.

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 week parameter already documents the ISO format and the omit-for-latest default, so the description's "omit week for the latest" is a restatement. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 Gameshot's edited weekly report) and describes the composition of the artifact: curated events drawn from the dailies, grouped by section, with an overview. The weekly framing clearly separates it from siblings like gameshot_get_daily, gameshot_get_monthly, and gameshot_get_story.

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 an explicit use condition plus the default behavior, which is exactly the decision an agent faces. It does not name a specific alternative (e.g. use get_daily for today), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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