Review a week

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating what the analysis actually surfaces (category hours, day balance, unbroken stretches, sleep protection), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but openWorldHint partly signals cross-account reach.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the analytical content front-loaded before the usage directive. Could be tightened slightly but every clause earns its place.

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 required parameters, the description does the needed work by describing the shape of the returned analysis and the pre-planning context. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only auth/permission nuances are unspecified.

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 100%, so week_of, accounts and timezone are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the constraint that the week must 'already exist,' which is a marginal semantic addition. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Analyse') and resource ('a week that already exists on the calendars'), then enumerates the concrete outputs: hours per category, day balance, long unbroken stretches, sleep protection. This distinguishes it from write-side siblings like propose_schedule and update_routine, which an agent can rule out immediately.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'open a weekly planning session, before proposing the next week,' which also implies ordering relative to propose_schedule. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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