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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context about pagination (limit/start/end/next_token) and the ability to query specific cycles with cycle_ids, plus a non-medical disclaimer. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with key data fields, and contains no fluff. Every clause adds informational value.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description usefully names returned fields and pagination behavior. However, with six parameters, no output schema, and no mention of account/auth or output shape, the description is only moderately complete for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret the tool.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains the purpose of limit/start/end/next_token and cycle_ids, but does not clarify the 'account' parameter, the format of start/end, or default limits. This is partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 identifies the resource as WHOOP physiological cycles and lists the specific data fields (strain, calories, average/max heart rate), which helps distinguish it from sibling WHOOP tools like sleep, recovery, or workouts. However, it lacks a direct imperative verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' in the main clause, relying instead on 'buscar' later in the description.

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 implies when to use the tool: for daily WHOOP cycle data with pagination, or for specific cycles via cycle_ids. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling WHOOP tools or state exclusions, but the data fields and 'dia a dia' scope provide reasonable contextual guidance.

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