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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful fact — that the artifact is a 'prompt pack' containing a prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling — implying the tool returns prompt content rather than a finished report. Beyond that it says nothing about output format, permissions, or side effects, and the sales-pitch framing obscures rather than clarifies behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, but all three are promotional filler ('produce professional results in minutes', 'Includes the complete prompt'). Nothing is front-loaded about the actual operation, so the brevity comes from omission rather than economy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and one free-text parameter, the description should explain what is returned and how the query shapes it. Instead it reads as a product blurb, leaving an agent unable to predict the result or to justify picking it over the --report/--weekly siblings.

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?

The single optional 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about what the query scopes, how it affects the returned prompt, or what happens when it is omitted.

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 says the tool helps restaurant and brand teams produce weekly reports, which gestures at a resource, but the actual verb is buried in marketing phrasing ('Turn expertise into output', 'produce professional results in minutes'). It never states plainly what the tool does when invoked, and gives no basis for distinguishing it from the many sibling report writers such as weekly-report-generator, weekly-write-tool, or report-writer-pro.

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 at all: no trigger conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of the dozens of near-identical weekly-* and report-* siblings an agent must choose between. The only implied context is 'restaurant and brand teams doing weekly reports', which is a target audience rather than a selection rule.

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