get_training_status_weekly

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the time window and the end parameter format. It does not explain how the weekly value is aggregated, what happens when end is null, whether the range is inclusive, or any read/access characteristics.

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 a single compact sentence with the core scope front-loaded and no filler. Every word contributes information.

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 simple one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it gives the time window and date format. It is not complete because it lacks explicit alternative routing and default behavior, but the low complexity prevents this from being a severe gap.

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?

The schema has no description coverage, but the 'up to end, YYYY-MM-DD' note does add format and semantic meaning for the single optional parameter. It still fails to explain the null default and the behavior when no end is provided, so compensation is partial.

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 identifies the resource (training status) and the temporal scope (last week), which is enough to distinguish it from get_training_status_daily and get_training_status_monthly. It lacks an explicit verb in the description itself, relying on the tool name's 'get', so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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 time window 'last week' implies this tool should be used when weekly granularity is needed, particularly against get_training_status_daily and get_training_status_monthly. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over those alternatives or what to do if no end date is supplied.

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