get_weekly_steps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the rolling window and date format but does not explain how a null or omitted 'end' behaves, whether the end date is inclusive, or timezone handling. For a read tool this is lightly transparent but incomplete.

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?

One compact sentence with all content front-loaded; the parenthetical adds period and date format without waste. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity read with an output schema, the description is close to sufficient. Remaining gaps around null default semantics and exact inclusion of the end date prevent it from being fully self-contained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies the key meaning for the single parameter: 'end' is the upper bound in YYYY-MM-DD format with a 7-day period. It does not clarify the meaning of the default null or whether the end date is included, so the 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 ('step count') and the exact time window ('last 7 days'), which separates it from get_daily_steps and get_steps_goal. It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or name a sibling tool, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you need 7-day step data anchored at the provided end date. It does not state when to prefer alternatives like get_daily_steps or get_steps_goal, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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