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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by listing the report's content sections, which is important because there is no output schema. It does not describe failure behavior for an unknown week id, keeping it below 5.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines the payload, the second gives the parameter source. Content listing is front-loaded before the procedural note, with no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 single-parameter, idempotent read tool with full annotation coverage, the definition supplies what an agent needs: what comes back (since there is no output schema) and where the id comes from. The only missing piece is behavior on an invalid or out-of-range week id.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the week id with an example format ("2026-w26"), so the baseline would be 3. The description adds provenance the schema lacks: that the id must come from polyrank_get_smart_money_reports, which tells the agent where the valid value originates.

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 ("One Polyrank weekly Skill Report in full") and enumerates the actual sections returned: big wins, skill-rank movers, new entrants, calibration leader, consensus divergence, editorial intro. That enumeration cleanly separates it from the archive sibling polyrank_get_smart_money_reports, which only lists weeks.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent through the alternative: get the week/report id from polyrank_get_smart_money_reports before calling this. That is clear when-to-use and which-sibling guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions or what to do if an id is invalid, so it is not a full 5.

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