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

The description discloses the key operational constraint (non-current weeks are Pro) and describes the report content. However, the annotations provide no read-only/destructive guarantees (readOnlyHint=false), and the description does not clarify whether the review is purely analytical or has side effects, nor what the returned structure looks like.

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 with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the operation and metrics, and the second states the one important usage limitation. Every word 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?

For a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool reports, the date format, the default, and the Pro limitation. It does not define the difference between 'finished' and 'completed' or explain the estimate-vs-actual comparison, but the core call envelope is clear.

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 week parameter already has a clear description with an example, default, and Pro restriction. The tool description adds that the review is per project but does not add materially beyond the schema for the single parameter.

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?

Description names a concrete operation ('Compare done against planned') with a clear scope ('one ISO week per project') and enumerates the exact metrics produced (due, finished, completed, estimate vs actual minutes). This is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like overdue and task_list.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used for weekly per-project completion reviews, and the 'Any week but this one is Pro' line signals a restriction on non-current weeks. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives such as task_list or overdue, or when not to use it.

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