get_weekly_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: 'Deterministic' signals stable, reproducible output, and it discloses what the health section measures (review-queue size, share of corrected extractions, approved values missing a canonical value). It does not discuss latency or pagination, but for a fixed 7-day aggregate that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the content inventory, then the routing sentence. The parenthetical system-health list is dense but each item is substantive; slightly heavy for a single description but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return structure, yet it still summarizes the report contents and the intelligence gathered (deterministic scope, alternatives). Everything an agent needs to select and call this zero-arg tool is present.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no documentation burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed by framing the report as a fixed last-7-days window.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deterministic report for the last 7 days') and enumerates the four content blocks it returns (new values, abnormal approved values, nutrient deficiencies/excesses, system health). This is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like get_health_summary or nutrition_report.

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 names the use case ('weekly check-in') and routes to two alternatives with their selecting conditions: get_trend for a single marker and prepare_doctor_visit for a visit. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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