get_progress_summary_between_dates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-style retrieval operation ('Get progress summary') but does not explain date inclusivity, timezone handling, aggregation semantics, or what 'progress' means in this context. It adds no behavioral insight beyond the basic action.

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 compact and the first sentence immediately communicates the core action. The Args section is cleanly formatted and directly complements the schema. Minor repetition of parameter names is acceptable given the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details may be covered elsewhere, and the description provides the essential inputs and date format. Still, it omits context about what a 'progress summary' contains, how dates are handled, and which metrics are valid beyond four examples. This is adequate for a simple data retrieval call but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 input schema covers 0% of parameter descriptions, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds date formats (YYYY-MM-DD) and concrete metric examples, which are useful and not present in the schema. It could go further by listing all valid metrics or units, but the provided examples substantially compensate for the schema gap.

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 that the tool gets a progress summary for a specific metric over a date range, using a specific verb and resource. The metric examples (elevationGain, duration, distance, movingDuration) make the intended purpose more concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from loosely related siblings like get_stats or get_user_summary.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage signal is the operation name itself, so an agent must infer appropriate scenarios. No comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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