get_week_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description contributes the payload composition (status and assignee on tasks, conflicts, list summaries) that the agent otherwise couldn't infer. It stops short of saying anything about result size, truncation, or what a conflict record looks like — the one gap for a multi-day aggregation that can return a lot of data.

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 outcome, then the routing rule, then a compact parameter block. Three short units, no filler, and the 'use first' instruction precedes the exclusions rather than being buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to enumerate the return payload — and it does (events, chores/tasks with status and assignee, meals, list summaries, conflicts), including the optional includeLists toggle. For a 4-param, zero-required read tool, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by documenting accepted relative date forms ('today', 'monday') that the schema's 'First day' text does not spell out, and by presenting dateEnd as an alternative to days. Otherwise it largely restates the schema's defaults and the 1–31 bound.

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 states a specific verb and resource set: one aggregated view of calendar events, chores/tasks, meals, and list summaries, day by day, plus conflicts. It explicitly distinguishes itself from four named sibling tools (get_calendar_events, get_chores, get_meal_sittings, get_lists), so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('Use this first when planning anything (dinners, errands, who drives)') and names the alternative calls it replaces for the same range. The 'use first / use this instead of X, Y, Z' pattern is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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