get_user_weekly_chart_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the return format (from/to Unix timestamp pairs) and the default behavior for the 'user' parameter (defaults to authenticated account). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, covering the essential behavioral aspects of the operation.

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 extremely concise—two short paragraphs. The opening sentence states the core function, the second explains the output format, and the Args section defines the parameter. No filler or redundancy. It is well-front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers all necessary elements: purpose, output structure (from/to timestamps), and parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists (though not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values beyond what it does. The tool's role as a helper for chart tools is clear, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter explanation. It does: 'Whose chart list to read. Defaults to the authenticated account.' This fully explains the single 'user' parameter, including its optionality and default. No further clarification is needed.

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's purpose: 'Get the week ranges a user has weekly charts for.' It specifies the resource (user's weekly chart availability) and the action (get week ranges). It also distinguishes itself from sibling chart tools by noting the output is to be 'passed to the weekly chart tools,' making it a helper rather than a chart-data tool.

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 explicitly says the output is to be used as input to the weekly chart tools, implying the intended usage pattern (get ranges first, then fetch charts). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the tool's niche is clear from its name and the stated purpose. Sibling tools like get_user_weekly_track_chart would be used after this, which is a reasonable inference.

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