get_weekly_steps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context at all: it doesn't say whether 'end' is the anchor and weeks counts backward, whether gaps are zero-filled, or what the aggregation granularity is. With annotations doing the safety work, the bar is lower, but this adds essentially nothing.

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?

It is a single compact clause with no filler, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the one sentence spends its budget on a parameter constraint while omitting purpose entirely. Appropriate length for the content, wrong content priority.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum state what is returned and how the date window is computed. It supplies neither, and it never mentions the required 'end' parameter or the relationship to sibling step tools, so an agent cannot call this confidently.

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 coverage is 50%: 'end' is documented in the schema (YYYY-MM-DD UTC), while 'weeks' has no schema description. The description compensates for exactly that gap by giving the default (52) and the constraint (positive integer). However, it omits the semantic relationship between 'end' and 'weeks' (e.g., whether weeks is counted backward from end), leaving the aggregation window ambiguous.

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 never states what the tool does; it only constrains one parameter. An agent must infer from the name get_weekly_steps that this returns aggregated weekly step counts, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_daily_steps, get_steps_data, or get_weekly_stress. This is effectively a restatement of parameter trivia rather than a purpose statement.

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, no mention of when to prefer this over get_daily_steps or get_steps_data, and no prerequisites or date-range context. The agent is given nothing to route on.

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