get_weekly_registrations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It identifies the operation as a read ('Get'), which is non-destructive. It also adds the behavioral constraint that the input must be the Monday of the week, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose any further behavior such as error handling, permission requirements, or response format. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then states the required input format. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is essentially complete: it states what it does and what input to provide. It does not explain the return format, but that is often assumed for a get operation. The only minor gap is the absence of differentiation from the date-range sibling, though that falls under usage guidance. Overall, an agent has enough context to call this tool 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% — the schema already documents startDate as 'Monday of the week, format YYYY-MM-DD'. The description repeats this information without adding new meaning. The parameter semantics are fully captured in the schema, so the description adds no extra value beyond the baseline.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'time registrations', and narrows the scope to 'a specific week'. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_registrations_by_date_range, as the tool is specifically for weekly data. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies usage context ('for a specific week') and instructs the agent to provide the Monday date, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to an alternative like get_registrations_by_date_range. The guidance is clear enough to infer the intended use case, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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