Weekly summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by defining the week boundary as Monday-based, which affects how rows are aligned. It omits the default lookback (8 weeks) and any note on max range, which matter for interpreting output volume.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the row grain before enumerating metrics, with no filler. It is efficient, though the bare metric list without grouping reads as a data dump rather than structured guidance.

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 output schema, the field enumeration is doing real work and covers the return shape well. What is missing for a one-parameter tool is the parameter's behavior (default window, limits) and any differentiation from get_weekly_report, so the definition is adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the lone `weeks` parameter is undocumented in the schema, and the description never explains it — no default of 8, no maximum of 260, no statement that it controls the number of rows returned. The Monday-based week statement indirectly clarifies row boundaries but does not compensate for the missing parameter guidance.

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 specifies the resource (weekly aggregates) and the exact grain (one row per Monday-based week) plus the metric set returned, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling get_weekly_report, leaving some ambiguity when both are available.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer this over get_weekly_report, get_trend, or get_today, and no context about typical use cases (e.g., multi-week trend review). The only usable signal is the implied weekly granularity.

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