Readiness scores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds behavioral details like temperature deviation in °C, which is valuable. No contradictions or misleading statements. Could be improved by disclosing how contributors are derived, but sufficient.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence conveys the core purpose, the second gives usage context, and the third states defaults. Structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return values: a 0-100 score, contributors (HRV balance, etc.), and temperature deviation in °C. This is adequate for an agent to understand what to expect. Minor gap: no mention of potential missing data or pagination, but acceptable for a simple daily metric 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% with both start_date and end_date already described. The description only adds the default behavior ('Defaults to the last 7 days'), which is useful but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides 'daily readiness scores (0-100)' and lists contributors, using a specific verb ('showing') and resource ('readiness scores'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like oura_get_activity and oura_get_heartrate by focusing on readiness. The scope ('last 7 days' default) is explicit.

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 specifies when to use this tool with example queries ('how recovered am I', 'should I train today', 'is my temperature elevated'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings, slightly lowering the score.

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