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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds material context beyond them: the required OAuth scope (read:recovery) and the exact REST route. It does not disclose failure modes (e.g., unscored cycles or missing data), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the payload summary is front-loaded, followed by endpoint and scope. No filler, though the endpoint/scope tail reads as reference metadata rather than agent guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned recovery fields, and the single required parameter is fully covered by the schema plus the required scope. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% — cycleId's type, minLength and provenance are already documented in the schema — so the description adds no syntactic or format detail about the single parameter. Baseline 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+resource ('Get the recovery scored for a specific cycle'), enumerates the returned metrics (recovery %, RHR, HRV RMSSD, SpO2 %, skin temperature), and names the exact REST endpoint, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling whoop_list_recoveries.

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 tool's use case (fetch recovery for one known cycleId) is implied, and the schema notes the cycleId comes from whoop_list_cycles. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over whoop_list_recoveries or whether the cycle must be completed/scored, leaving selection to inference.

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