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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return payload in detail and framing the report as a first-read summary, though it says nothing about data freshness, cost, or latency. No output schema exists, so this content description carries real weight and is mostly delivered.

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?

Purpose and the 'read first' framing are front-loaded, and the alternatives are correctly placed at the end. The middle is a long enumerated list of report contents, which is dense but each item maps to a distinct section an agent may be looking for, so little is wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of explaining the shape of the returned report and when to prefer sibling tools. What is missing is minor: error behavior for invalid project ids, timezone/date boundary semantics for the week, and whether the report is cached.

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%, with the week format and the 'leave out for the current week' default already documented in the schema. The description only implies the single-site scope ('one site') and adds no syntax or edge-case guidance for week or projectId beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the weekly report of one site') and then enumerates exactly what the report contains (headline numbers, per-assistant results, leaderboard, prompt changes, per-topic numbers, next steps). It also names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from get_trends and get_competitor_report without opening a schema.

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 positions the tool as 'the summary to read first' and gives two concrete redirects: 'For several weeks use get_trends; for one rival use get_competitor_report.' That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and named alternatives in one place.

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