weekly_briefing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful content context (it merges assignments, deadlines, and overdue items in one view), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or auth needs, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the scope and then the contents; nothing is redundant. It is efficient, though the telegraphic style leaves a couple of concepts underspecified.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the safety annotations cover the risk profile. What is missing is any routing against the many sibling briefing/assignment tools and any explanation of the days parameter, which matters for a tool with a configurable window.

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 schema has one parameter (days, default 7) with 0% description coverage, and the description hardcodes 'the next 7 days' without acknowledging that the window is configurable. This leaves the parameter undocumented and arguably obscures its purpose rather than explaining it.

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 names the resource and its scope precisely: the next 7 days grouped by course, covering assignments (with status), calendar deadlines, and overdue items. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema. It never differentiates itself from the obvious sibling daily_briefing, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, but the 7-day window implies this is the weekly counterpart to daily_briefing and broader than upcoming_assignments. Usage is inferable from scope rather than stated, and no exclusions are given.

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