get_date_range_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns totals over a period and accepts a period string with examples, but it does not state whether the data is read-only, if there are rate limits, or what happens when no data exists. The behavior is reasonably transparent for a summary query.

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 concise (two sentences plus parameter descriptions) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter descriptions could be folded into the initial sentence for even tighter structure.

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?

Given no annotations, 2 parameters, and an output schema (which likely describes return fields), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its inputs. The sibling context suggests this is a summary tool among many activity-specific ones. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'period' parameter with examples ('last 30 days', 'this month', 'last week') and for 'sport' as an optional filter with examples ('running', 'cycling'). However, it does not specify allowed values or formats beyond the examples, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 aggregates totals (activities, distance, time, calories) over a period, with an explicit example ('how much did I run last month'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_activity_details' or 'list_activities' by focusing on summary across a date range.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance with the example and optional sport filter. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for detailed activity breakdowns) or suggest alternatives like 'get_activity_details' for granular data.

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