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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral context: pagination mechanics via limit/nextToken, created-time filtering, the underlying REST endpoint (GET /v2/recovery), and the required read:recovery scope for auth. It omits practical traits like rate limits or the possibility of missing recoveries for unscored cycles.

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 tight sentences: scope of the list, returned fields, then pagination/filtering, followed by two compact metadata lines (endpoint, scope). Front-loaded and every clause carries information; nothing redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the fields each recovery contains and its links to cycle and sleep, plus the pagination and filtering model. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret results.

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%, so the schema already fully documents end, limit, start and nextToken, including the ISO 8601 format and the 1-25 range. The description only restates the existence of limit/nextToken and start/end without adding format or constraint detail, so 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 and resource ("List the user's recoveries") plus ordering ("most recent first") and the payload it returns (recovery %, RHR, HRV RMSSD, SpO2, skin temperature). It also distinguishes itself from the single-record sibling whoop_get_cycle_recovery by nature of being a listing, and from whoop_list_cycles/sleep/workouts by resource.

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?

Gives clear context for when this applies: bulk retrieval of recoveries, filterable by created-time window, paginated. It does not explicitly name the alternative single-record tool or state exclusions (e.g. it never says recoveries only exist for scored days), so it stops short of a 5.

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