week_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key counting rules: overlaps counted once, all-day events excluded unless all_day_blocks, and crowded days defined as 75%+ of working hours booked. However, it does not clarify whether per-day hours booked are restricted to work_start–work_end or include events outside those hours.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the summary output then parameter details. No redundant text; every clause contributes.

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 5 params, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers outputs and several parameters but leaves usage alternatives and work_start/work_end semantics unaddressed. It is adequate but incomplete for tool selection.

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 coverage is 0% for 5 parameters. The description documents start format and default, days range 1-60, and the all_day_blocks effect. It only indirectly implies work_start/work_end define working hours and gives no format or default for them.

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?

States it summarizes booking per day with event count and hours, overlaps counted once, plus total, busiest, empty, and crowded days. It clearly defines the output metrics, though it does not name sibling tools like agenda or find_free_time to differentiate use cases.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It only provides defaults and range for start/days. An agent must infer that this is for calendar load summaries rather than raw event listing.

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