whoop_recovery

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the key trait: this reads only the local database rather than hitting the API, and requires whoop_sync to be fresh. It omits what happens when the DB is empty/unsynced or any error/edge behavior, but the source-of-truth disclosure is the meaningful part.

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 tight clauses with no filler: the output shape and ordering come first, the data-source caveat second. Every phrase adds information.

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, so the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields and ordering. The sync prerequisite covers freshness. Minor gap: no mention of what an empty or unsynced database yields, but for a simple two-param read tool this is close to complete.

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 both 'days' and 'limit' are already documented with ranges and defaults in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics for either parameter, so the 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?

The description states a specific resource (recovery records) and enumerates the returned fields (score, resting HR, HRV, SpO2, skin temperature) plus ordering (newest first). That field list cleanly separates it from siblings like whoop_sleep and whoop_workouts without needing to open any schema.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition and routing hint: 'Reads the local database only; run whoop_sync first to refresh.' That tells the agent when the data source is valid and which sibling to run beforehand. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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