schedule_week_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety. It does add value by disclosing that the tool aggregates three sources and returns a combined view, including an overdue_tasks key. It stops short of documenting edge behavior like timezone handling or how multi-day week boundaries are resolved, but for a read-only overview tool the disclosed behavior is adequate.

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?

Three clearly organized sections: the one-line purpose, a plain-language explanation of the combined view, and a compact Args/Returns block. Every sentence earns its place, the most important info is front-loaded, and the return keys are listed explicitly.

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 read-only aggregate tool with one straightforward parameter, an output schema present, and sibling names that clarify the alternatives, the description fully equips an agent to select and invoke it. The combined-source behavior plus the return-key list makes the tool's contract clear, and no mutation/prerequisite caveats are needed given the readOnlyHint.

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 0% at the top level, but the nested 'date' property has its own description ('Any date within the desired week (ISO date string)'). The description text adds the key semantic that any date in the target week works and that it defaults to the current week, which matches and enriches the schema. Since there is only one parameter and the schema already explains it, the description's contribution is useful but not essential.

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 ('Get a unified overview') and resource ('a week') and describes exactly what it aggregates: calendar events, Notion appointments, and tasks due. It also names itself as the primary 'how does my week look?' tool, which distinguishes it from the individual sibling tools that fetch only one source.

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 explicitly frames this as the primary tool for a 'how does my week look?' query and explains that it pulls from all three sources, so an agent knows to use this instead of calling gcal_get_events, notion_get_appointments, and notion_get_tasks separately. It could be slightly more explicit about when NOT to use it (e.g., when only one event stream is needed), but the primacy claim is strong routing guidance.

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