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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses required scope (read:recovery), page-size cap and cursor mechanics, ordering, and the fact that each record links to its cycle and sleep. It stops short of rate-limit or error behavior, keeping it from 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with identity and ordering. The parenthetical listing of returned signals is not padding – with no output schema it is the only place an agent learns what a recovery contains – and the endpoint/scope tail is compact.

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 four-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers identity, ordering, returned fields, pagination behavior, filtering, endpoint, and required scope. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% – start/end ISO-8601 semantics, the 1–25 limit bound, and the nextToken cursor are all already documented in the schema. The description only restates limit/nextToken and the start/end window, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond it, which is the baseline 3.

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'), which separates it from the singular whoop_get_cycle_recovery sibling. The underlying WHOOP REST endpoint (GET /v2/recovery) and scope (read:recovery) pin the purpose down unambiguously.

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 implies usage by naming the pagination and created-time filtering affordances, so an agent can infer when this list tool is appropriate. However, it never states when to prefer this over whoop_get_cycle_recovery or whoop_list_cycles, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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