Oura Demo

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

The description confirms the tool returns examples (non-destructive, read-only), aligning with annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false). It adds value by naming the specific payloads returned, beyond what annotations provide.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage context without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 a simple schema (1 param, no output schema), the description identifies the returned payloads by name but does not detail the contract's structure or contents. It is adequate but could provide more insight into the example data format.

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?

The schema has one parameter (response_format) with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not mention the parameter or its effect on output, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. The parameter is self-explanatory but should be acknowledged.

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 that the tool returns realistic example payloads of three specific sibling tools, providing a concrete verb (returns) and resource (example payloads). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings as a demo tool.

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 context by stating 'so agents see the contract before calling real Oura APIs', suggesting it should be used as a precursor to real tool calls. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative uses or specify when not to use it.

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