get_weekly_schedule

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (enabled status, lead time, timezone, per-day configs), the default-value behavior when no schedule exists, and the viewInBrowser link. This gives a good sense of what to expect without needing annotations.

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 sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: what it retrieves, what it returns, and the default behavior plus link. No waste.

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 getter with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description is complete. It covers return content, edge case (no schedule), and a UI link, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, and both parameters (detail, brandId) have thorough descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves the current weekly content schedule for the active brand, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like enable_weekly_schedule, disable_weekly_schedule, and set_weekly_schedule by focusing on retrieval.

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 description gives clear context: it's for reading the schedule, and mentions behavior when no schedule is configured (returns suggested defaults). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read vs. write distinction from sibling tools is obvious.

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