whoop_get_strain_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by listing the returned data fields (strain scores, calories, heart rate trends) and temporal scope ('recent', 'multiple days'), but does not mention ordering, default range, or any limitations. It is a read-only get operation, but the description does not elaborate on edge cases or response details.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core concept ('Recent daily strain'), and every word contributes meaningful information. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the main data content and temporal scope. It could mention default behavior or return structure, but the schema already documents the parameters, and the description's compact overview is adequate for a read-only list operation.

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% (both 'limit' and 'response_format' have detailed descriptions), so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds minimal value beyond implying the 'limit' parameter via 'multiple days'.

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 clearly states the tool returns recent daily strain data, including strain scores, calories, and heart rate trends over multiple days. This distinguishes it from the singular whoop_get_strain tool and other history tools by focusing on daily history.

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 for historical daily strain data through words like 'recent' and 'over multiple days', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over whoop_get_strain or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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