Get Progress Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds the word 'aggregated', implying it returns a summary rather than individual records, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose any other behavioral traits (like output format or pagination), but given the simple nature and annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. There is no redundancy or padding.

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 simple tool with only three parameters and a clear schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks any indication of what the aggregated summary output looks like (e.g., a single value, breakdown by day). Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more specificity would help, but it is not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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 100%, with each parameter (startDate, endDate, metric) having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('aggregated progress summary'), qualified by 'between two dates'. It is not a tautology and gives a specific purpose. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_daily_summary or get_user_summary, which may also provide summary-like data, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for date-range aggregation or suggest any alternative tools for different needs. There is no context about typical use cases or exclusions, matching the 'no guidance' case.

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