get_weekly_steps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It clearly indicates a read-only aggregation operation by saying it 'Returns weekly step totals'. It does not mention edge cases like week-boundary handling or invalid inputs, but these are not critical for a simple read query.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a clarifying sentence, and a short args list. No unnecessary words or redundant information are present.

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?

The description provides enough context for typical use, covering the query target and all parameters. It does not describe the response structure, but an output schema is indicated as present, and the tool is a simple aggregate query.

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 description fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions by explaining end_date as a YYYY-MM-DD date and weeks as the number of weeks with default 4 and max 52. Both parameters are given meaningful, actionable semantics.

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 specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'weekly step data aggregates', with a precise scope of weekly step totals for a specified number of weeks ending at end_date. This makes it readily distinguishable from daily step or raw step data siblings.

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 clearly implies use when weekly aggregate step totals are needed rather than daily step data, especially through the 'weekly step totals' and 'weeks' parameters. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_daily_steps or get_steps_data, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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