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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the result is ISO-8601 week numbering or locale-based, not the behavior when 'date' is omitted (it is not required), and not the return shape.

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?

Extremely short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — the only sentence duplicates the tool name, so no sentence earns its place. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose to build on.

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-param date utility with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate: the key ambiguity (ISO week vs. calendar week vs. locale week, which the sibling set makes highly relevant) is left entirely unresolved, and the optional 'date' parameter's default behavior is unexplained.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Date to process'), so per the coverage baseline the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no format or default information, but nothing is missing that the schema does not already cover.

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 restates the tool name verbatim ('Week Of Year: Week Of Year') and never states a verb or what is computed from the input. An agent learns nothing about the operation beyond the slug. It also fails to distinguish this from close siblings such as x402-week-number, x402-iso-week, and x402-day-of-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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given the cluster of near-identical date/week siblings (x402-week-number, x402-iso-week, x402-weeks-in-year, x402-day-of-year), routing guidance is exactly what this definition needed and does not provide.

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