Get weekly signals

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it defines null as 'not counted, never zero', discloses the 8-week threshold before pattern claims appear, flags that the 'story' field covers only last week, and warns against ROI/causal interpretation. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs to avoid misreporting the numbers.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the long metric enumeration is justified because there is no output schema to document return fields. The trade-off is a dense run-on sentence whose mid-section metric list is harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining return contents and does so thoroughly — per-week metrics, moving averages, notes, story, patterns, and null semantics are all covered. Nothing essential to calling or interpreting the tool is missing.

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?

Zero parameters and a 100% covered schema, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing parameter-level for the description to clarify. The time window is fixed by the tool rather than configurable, and the description states that clearly.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-and-resource framing ('What the posts did week by week') and pins the scope to the last 12 weeks plus the current Monday-to-Sunday UTC window. It is clearly a weekly post-performance report, but it never names or contrasts itself with the obvious sibling, postfjord_get_analytics.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the weekly granularity and post-centric metrics suggest when to reach for it, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of get_analytics when...' or exclusion guidance. With ~60 siblings including get_analytics and get_campaign_report, an explicit routing sentence would materially help.

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