get_progress_summary_between_dates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only default parameter behavior ('metric="distance"', 'groupbyactivities=true'), not aggregation semantics, result shape, or any constraint on the read itself.

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 single clause is free of padding, but it is drastically undersized for a 4-parameter analytical tool and is not front-loaded with any statement of what the tool returns.

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?

No output schema exists, so the return shape is not covered elsewhere, and the description says nothing about it. With four parameters and only defaults documented, an agent cannot confidently decide what this tool produces or what metric values to pass.

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 50% — the two date params are documented, but `metric` and `groupbyactivities` are bare. The description partly compensates by disclosing their defaults, which the schema does not, but it never enumerates valid `metric` values or explains what grouping by activities changes in the output.

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 name implies a verb+resource (get a progress summary over a date range), but the description never states what a 'progress summary' is, what it aggregates, or in what units. It only documents parameter defaults, which is not purpose. Among dozens of `get_*` siblings, nothing here differentiates this tool's scope.

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 when-to-use guidance, no indication of when this is preferable to `get_stats`, `get_daily_stats`, `get_weekly_steps`, or the other range/summary siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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