get_week_year

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return values (week number, ISO week, etc.) but doesn't cover important aspects like error handling for invalid dates, timezone considerations, or performance characteristics. The description adds some value by specifying the return format, but gaps remain for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the 'Returns' section could be more concise. There's minimal wasted text, but the formatting as a docstring-like block is slightly verbose.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values in the description), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return overview, though it lacks usage guidelines and some behavioral details. The output schema likely handles return value documentation adequately.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'date_str' is a 'Date in YYYY-MM-DD format' and 'Defaults to today,' clarifying the parameter's purpose and default behavior. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't detail edge cases like null handling.

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's purpose: 'Get week number and ISO week of the year.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resources (week number, ISO week, day of year, related info). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_datetime' or 'relative_time' that might also handle date-related calculations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_datetime' or 'relative_time', nor does it specify use cases or exclusions. The only implied context is date-based calculations, but no explicit usage guidelines are given.

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