get_calendar_week

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return shape, the exact 7-day array length, the sampling behavior (NOT the full list), and the server-side 400 error for non-Monday weekStart. It could add more about authentication or rate limits, but for a read operation, these are the most critical behavioral details.

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 four sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then delivering return format, constraints, and alternatives in a logical order. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately details the return shape and key constraints. It explains the 7-day guarantee and the sample-of-drafts behavior. However, it does not explain how status/platform parameters affect the aggregate, which leaves a gap in the overall context for such a complex tool.

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 only 33% (only weekStart has a description). The description adds the Monday constraint for weekStart, but entirely omits the semantics of the 'status' and 'platform' array parameters. The agent is left to guess whether these are filters, inclusion lists, or something else. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did 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 clearly states the tool fetches a weekly calendar aggregate, distinguishing it from get_calendar_day by explicitly noting the latter is for drilling into a specific day. The return format is specified, so the agent knows exactly what to expect.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for "what's my week look like" type queries' and directs to get_calendar_day for day-level detail. This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus the sibling.

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