get_weekly_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (ranked list of typed actions), gives examples of action types, and clearly states the not-available behavior on non-BigCommerce platforms. For a read-only fetch, this is solid transparency, though it could add details about freshness or ordering criteria.

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 comprised of two dense, purposeful sentences: the first covers what the tool does and what the output looks like; the second covers usage triggers and platform behavior. There is no redundancy, and every clause 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to select and invoke the tool: purpose, sample output shape, trigger phrases, and platform availability. It could mention success behavior in more detail (e.g., empty plan handling), but the provided examples and not-available note already cover the main edge case.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required because there are no inputs to document.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('current weekly action plan for the merchant') with a helpful elaboration of the returned content (ranked list of typed actions). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_recommendations or get_opportunities, but the 'weekly plan' concept is distinct enough that an agent should be able to pick it out.

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 gives concrete trigger phrases ('what should I work on this week?', 'what's on my plate?') and notes the platform limitation (BigCommerce today; not-available message elsewhere). It provides clear when-to-use context but does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, so it stops just short of a 5.

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