weekly_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose some behavior by mentioning a 'data-quality gate', 'source reconciliation', and 'SQL audit trail', implying that the tool validates data and tracks lineage. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has side effects, leaving important safety and execution context unspecified.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core concept ('weekly KPI briefing') and then lists relevant components. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a reasonably complete picture: it states the cadence, the deliverable type, and the main built-in features. It could offer more detail about the exact output shape or behavior on data-quality failure, but it is sufficient for basic invocation understanding.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameter usage. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 identifies the tool as 'the weekly KPI briefing' and lists its key components (findings, data-quality gate, source reconciliation, SQL audit trail), making its purpose clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'generates' or 'retrieves', but the noun phrase is specific enough and distinguishes it from the sibling query/reconcile tools by its weekly-report scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query or reconcile. It does not mention intended scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent is left to infer usage from the name and brief description.

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