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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it reveals nothing beyond the phrase 'Calendar Weeks.' It does not state whether the tool computes, formats, lists, or transforms data, nor does it mention output, side effects, or edge cases. There is no annotation contradiction, but there is also no behavioral information of any kind.

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?

The description is short but not concise; it is under-specified and repetitive, merely echoing the tool name. It lacks the functional substance needed to justify its brevity.

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?

This is a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides zero usable context. An agent cannot determine expected input formats, return values, or how calendar weeks are represented. The description is completely inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even if the description adds no parameter detail. However, the parameter descriptions 'Year to process' and 'Input to process' are generic and the prose description adds no further meaning. The tool description does not clarify what 'input' means in the context of calendar weeks, so it fails to add value beyond the schema.

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 'Calendar Weeks: Calendar Weeks' is a pure tautology that restates the tool name without adding any verb, resource, or behavior. It gives an agent no indication of what operation to perform, such as calculating, listing, or converting calendar weeks. It also fails to differentiate this tool from related siblings like x402-iso-week, x402-week-number, or x402-weeks-in-year.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. It contains no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to guess from the name alone.

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