Current Weeek user

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by noting the tool makes a live network call and 'proves both transport AND credentials,' which is beyond what annotations express. It does not describe failure modes but the output schema covers the response.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with 'PRIMARY tool for confirming' which immediately conveys the main purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, return shape, and usage distinction. No redundant or extraneous wording.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and how it differs from ping. The return values are also summarized even though an output schema exists. There are no significant gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is complete at 100%. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meaning. The description's non-mention of parameters is fine.

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 is the PRIMARY tool for confirming WEEEK_ACCESS_TOKEN works against the live API and returns {id, email, name} for the account owning the token. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling ping, making the tool's unique purpose and resource unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly provides guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use when an agent is about to run weeek_list_* / weeek_get_* and wants a one-shot token sanity-check first.' It also contrasts with ping, stating that ping never reaches the network, thus giving an explicit alternative and exclusion.

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