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 needs no restating. The description adds genuine context the annotations cannot: that a single call aggregates four distinct content classes (published results, scheduled, editorially planned, and unplanned candidates) for one week, which tells the agent what payload shape to expect. It omits volume/pagination expectations for a potentially large aggregate, keeping it from a 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the scope ('One week of the calendar'), then enumerating contents in a compact parallel list. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation facts.

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 aggregate read tool with no output schema, the description carries its weight by enumerating the returned sections, and the schema handles week/project semantics. It is slightly incomplete on whether all sections are always present and whether unplanned items are capped, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented in-schema, including the 'any day of the week' default and the project id-or-site convention. The description adds no further meaning about how 'week' is resolved or what happens when project is omitted, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource and scope: one week of the calendar, broken into published results, scheduled posts, editorially dated posts, and unplanned items. It is a list of contents rather than a verb phrase, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like uptake_posts or uptake_overview, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the inventory of content ('what is left to plan'), which suggests a weekly planning/review workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the 15 sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the aggregate weekly view versus the narrower uptake_posts or uptake_ideas.

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