get_week_number

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions cost and category. It does not explain what the tool does beyond the name, any required input format, return value, or side effects. The cost disclosure is a minor positive, but core behavioral information is absent.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the tool name, and contains no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is efficient and well-structured, though brevity here comes at the cost of informativeness, which is addressed in other dimensions.

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 absence of output schema, annotations, and the generic input schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what parameters to pass, what the output looks like, or any other operational details. For a simple tool, some basic context is still needed, making this incomplete.

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 input schema has a single generic 'params' object with a description that only says 'Tool parameters as JSON object', carrying no specific meaning. Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no information about what fields the params object should contain (e.g., date, format). The tool description does not compensate, leaving parameters completely underspecified.

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 'get week number' which names the resource and implies fetching a week number, but the added 'Data & Weather tool' label is vague and does not specify what input is expected or what exactly is computed. It does not distinguish from similar tools like get_season or get_weather, making it minimally clear but not fully descriptive.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only gives a broad category ('Data & Weather tool') and cost, with no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when to prefer other sibling tools. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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