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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes beyond that by disclosing the required OAuth scope ('read:recovery') and the underlying REST route, which tells the agent about authorization requirements before it attempts the call. Since there is no output schema, listing the returned fields (recovery %, RHR, HRV RMSSD, SpO2, skin temp) also adds real behavioral value.

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?

Three compact fragments with no filler: purpose and returned fields first, then endpoint and scope. Nothing is repeated or padded, and the most decision-relevant information leads.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it enumerates the return fields and states the auth scope. It stops short of describing the response shape (e.g. whether recovery is a nested score object) but leaves no ambiguity about how to invoke 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 100% and the schema already explains that cycleId is an integer obtained from whoop_list_cycles. The description only restates that the cycle is 'specific' and adds no format, example, or constraint beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the recovery scored for a specific cycle') and enumerates the returned metrics, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. The phrase 'a specific cycle' implicitly separates it from the sibling whoop_list_recoveries, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 use this tool versus whoop_list_recoveries or whoop_get_cycle, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The REST endpoint and scope note are provenance, not usage guidance; the caller must infer the workflow (obtain a cycleId, then fetch its recovery) from the name alone.

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