History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior: today is always returned as in-progress rather than met/failed. It says nothing about read-only safety, ordering of the returned days, or limits on N — gaps that remain uncovered by any structured field.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the returned data, with the parenthetical reserved for the one edge case that matters. Nothing is wasted, though the leading noun phrase asks the reader to infer that this is a read operation.

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-shape explanation is rightly absent, and the description covers scope plus the today edge case. Still missing for a parameterized reporting tool: the default window length, any cap on 'days', and how it differs from get_progress and streak_status.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'days' is the lookback window and that 'goal_id' scopes the report to a single goal, but it omits the default of 7 and any bounds or type expectations that the schema also leaves unstated.

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 names a specific resource and scope — daily totals plus met/not-met status for one goal over N days — which is concrete and distinguishable in kind from logging tools. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closest siblings get_progress and streak_status, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 only implied by 'over the last N days'; there is no statement of when to call this instead of get_progress or streak_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to guess which of the three reporting tools answers a given question.

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