get_last_week_attendance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it supplies almost none: it never confirms this is a read-only operation, does not say which week boundary or timezone applies, and does not hint at the shape or size of the returned stats. 'Stats' is left undefined, so an agent must guess what comes back.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the distinguishing scope ('last week') is stated up front. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves open what the stats contain and how the week is defined. An agent can call it safely, but cannot reason about the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly signals that the target is fixed to the signed-in employee with no arguments to supply. Nothing further is needed on this dimension.

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?

Names a concrete resource (attendance stats) with a clear scope (last week) and an implicit subject (signed-in employee), which separates it from broader siblings like get_attendance_summary or get_attendance_calendar. The verb is only implicit ('get' from the name), and the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those 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?

There is no statement of when to pick this over the many other attendance tools (get_attendance_status, get_attendance_summary, get_attendance_calendar). The weekly scope is inferable from the name only; no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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