get_weekly_stress

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 structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that - no mention of what window is returned, granularity, units, or behavior when data is missing. Its only content is a parameter-handling cross-reference, so it contributes almost nothing beyond the annotations.

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 short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than economy - the single sentence is a dependency pointer with no front-loaded statement of purpose. No sentence tells the agent what the tool is or when to call it.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the definition supplies no purpose, no return semantics, no date-window behavior, and no differentiation from a large sibling set of stress and weekly-rollup tools. It is not usable as a standalone definition.

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 (YYYY-MM-DD UTC) but `weeks` is bare. The description does acknowledge `weeks` by pointing to getWeeklySteps for its default and validation, which is at least an attempt to cover the gap, but it outsources the meaning to another tool's definition rather than stating the default or valid range here. An agent cannot resolve the parameter from this tool's definition alone.

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 is a cross-reference fragment ('same `weeks` default/validation as `getWeeklySteps`') that assumes the reader already knows what weekly stress data means and what the sibling returns. The name is the only signal of verb+resource, and the description adds none of the necessary scope (weekly stress aggregation from what source, over what date range).

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 at all. With siblings like get_stress_data, get_all_day_stress, get_weekly_intensity_minutes and get_weekly_steps in the same family, the description gives the agent no basis for choosing this tool over those, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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