get_progress_summary_between_dates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, and the description adds return shape ('list of JSON activities with their aggregated progress summary') plus the default grouping behavior. It does not describe pagination or how ungrouped totals are returned, but that is minor against the annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, but it is a pasted docstring with ':param'/':return' artifacts and the date format is repeated twice (per param and again in the trailing note). Understandable but not polished.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and it covers all four parameters, the read-only nature, and the Garmin Connect data source. Sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: it gives the YYYY-MM-DD format for both dates, enumerates the metric values (elevationGain, duration, distance, movingDuration), and explains that groupbyactivities groups by activity type. Only the boolean semantics of false (single total?) remain implicit.

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 and resource: 'Return progress totals (distance, duration, ...) between two dates'. It is clearly an aggregation tool, distinguishing it from activity-level siblings like get_activity, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the date-range framing, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus sibling aggregators such as get_weekly_activity_stats, get_lifetime_totals, or get_user_statistics. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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