get_training_week

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious reporting trait: each total states the count of activities that reported the metric, protecting against misinterpretation of incomplete aggregates. It also pins down the week boundary (Mon-Sun).

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 sentence with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the reliability caveat is appended in a second clause. Every word earns its place.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the aggregation window and a metric caveat. The main gap is the undocumented default/null-date behavior, which the schema leaves unresolved. That gap is minor given the low complexity.

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%, and the description never mentions the single 'date' parameter, its format, or the meaning of null (default). The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. An agent must guess how to format the date and what a null value does.

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 a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('a Mon-Sun week'), making the function's scope immediately clear. It contrasts implicitly with get_daily_summary by defining the weekly aggregation granularity, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 'Mon-Sun' qualifier conveys that a provided date is interpreted within its calendar week, which is useful routing context. It implies this tool is for weekly rather than daily or single-metric summaries, but gives no explicit exclusions and names no alternatives.

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