get_weekly_stress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey that the tool returns aggregate weekly values over a configurable number of weeks ending at end_date, and 'Get'/'Returns' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention edge cases like no data, whether end_date is inclusive, or timezone handling. Adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, the second describes the return shape, and the final Args block documents parameters with no filler. Every sentence 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?

For a straightforward two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, the date format, and the week count constraint. It is complete enough to invoke correctly. The main missing context is alternative routing and edge-case behavior, but those are not critical for basic invocation.

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 description's Args section is essential. It adds meaningful details beyond the schema: end_date's required YYYY-MM-DD format, and weeks as 'Number of weeks to fetch (default 4, max 52).' This is sufficient for the two parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get weekly stress data aggregates' and expands to 'Returns weekly stress values for the specified number of weeks ending at end_date.' This clearly identifies the tool as a weekly aggregation query, and the weekly scope distinguishes it from raw stress data tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains get_stress_data, get_stress_summary, and get_all_day_stress, but the description never explains how get_weekly_stress differs or when to choose it over them. A simple 'use this for weekly aggregates, raw data elsewhere' note would have helped.

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