weekly_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics (Monday week boundary, which values are averaged vs totaled, end-of-week snapshots), but says nothing about how far back data goes, how partial weeks are handled, or how many weeks are returned by default.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that puts the granularity and week-start convention first and then enumerates the metrics. Slightly list-heavy and jargon-dense (Body Battery, fitness/form) but no wasted phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so the metric list is arguably redundant and return-value shape needn't be explained. The gaps that remain — the `weeks` parameter's meaning and the choice against sibling metric tools — are the ones an agent actually needs before calling.

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 single `weeks` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and a default of 6, and the description never mentions it — 'week-by-week' implies a multi-week series but not that the caller controls the count. With one undocumented parameter, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns: week-by-week averages of sleep score/hours, HRV, resting HR, stress, Body Battery, active kcal, steps, plus training-hour/load totals and end-of-week fitness/form. That is a concrete resource and scope, so an agent can distinguish it from generic timeseries tools. It does not name a verb or explicitly contrast with the `daily` sibling, keeping it at 4.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this over `daily`, `timeseries`, `training_load`, or `readiness_history`, which all live in the same metric space. The Monday-start convention hints at the aggregation granularity but gives no selection criteria or exclusions.

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