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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the authoritative REST endpoint (GET /v2/user/measurement/body) and the required OAuth scope (read:body_measurement), which tells the agent about auth requirements. It does not, however, address caching, update frequency, or what happens if measurement data is absent.

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?

It is a single sentence followed by the endpoint and scope, all front-loaded with the resource first. The endpoint path is arguably redundant with the tool's identity, but the scope reference earns its place. No filler.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by naming the three fields and their units. Nothing critical is missing for a simple parameterless read, though it never says how to interpret the values or handle missing data.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description usefully documents the units of the returned values (meters, kilograms), which adds meaning even though there are no inputs to describe.

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 (the user's body measurements) and enumerates the exact fields returned (height in meters, weight in kilograms, max heart rate), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like whoop_get_profile or whoop_get_cycle. It is clear but never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus whoop_get_profile or the other read tools, and no prerequisites or conditions are given. The only implicit cue is that it is a static user attribute lookup. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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