get_weekly_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the output as aggregated metrics but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, whether results are paginated, authentication requirements, or that it is a read-only operation. The agent lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main purpose and key metrics, and contains no filler. Every word 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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the response contains beyond the high-level metrics. It mentions 'calls, average duration, and cost per week' but omits structure, grouping, and additional fields. Given the moderate complexity of 5 optional parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's output.

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 100% with all five parameters having descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema—it only mentions the output metrics, not parameter details. Thus, no extra value is provided.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'weekly aggregated metrics', and lists specific metrics (calls, average duration, cost). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_daily_summary or get_usage_breakdown, leaving some ambiguity.

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 says 'Good for spotting week-over-week trends,' which provides implicit usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternative tools for different time granularities or metrics.

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