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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds meaningful context beyond those: pagination style, ability to query specific cycles, and the medical disclaimer about wearable data. This gives the agent a reasonable behavioral model without contradicting the annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded with the resource type and returned fields, then adds necessary behavioral details about pagination and filtering. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without wasted words.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately outlines the returned metrics, pagination strategy, alternate query path via cycle_ids, and a safety caveat. It still leaves some gaps around the account parameter and default date-range behavior, but it is sufficient for a moderate-complexity read-only 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter semantics burden. It groups limit/start/end/next_token as pagination parameters and explains what cycle_ids does, but it does not clarify the format of start/end, the meaning of limit, or the account parameter, leaving several parameters under-specified.

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 indicates the tool retrieves WHOOP recovery data and enumerates key return fields (recovery_score, HRV, resting HR, SpO2, skin temperature), which distinguishes it from sibling WHOOP tools like whoop_sleep or whoop_workouts. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'fetch' or 'list', relying on the tool name and context to imply retrieval.

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 useful usage guidance by explaining pagination via limit/start/end/next_token and that cycle_ids fetch recovery for specific cycles. It does not explicitly compare against siblings or state when another WHOOP tool should be used instead, leaving some ambiguity around tool selection.

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