weekly_report

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data included (e.g., merged MacroFactor+Garmin strength data) and daily detail, but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or whether the operation is safe/read-only. However, for a report, this transparency is adequate.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence is front-loaded with the main purpose. The second paragraph lists included data efficiently without excessive verbosity.

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?

Given the complexity of a multi-domain report, the description covers the key data categories included. An output schema exists (not shown), so return values need not be explained. Minor omissions like timezone handling do not detract significantly.

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%, but the description explains the 'end_date' parameter with format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default behavior. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's type and default values.

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 it generates a 'Comprehensive 7-day report' covering nutrition, workouts, sleep, body, and activity. It uses specific verbs and resource scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects.

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 implies use for a consolidated weekly view but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like daily_briefing or sleep_analysis. No exclusionary criteria are provided.

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