Get Oura Personal Info

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral requirement of the 'personal' scope, which is beyond what annotations provide, enhancing transparency.

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 concise at two sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be restructured to include sibling differentiation without adding length.

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 presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate for a simple, read-only tool. However, it lacks clarification on how 'personal profile fields' differ from other data available via sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (privacy_mode and response_format), so the description adds no new semantic meaning. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 the action ('Get') and resource ('personal profile fields'), providing a specific verb+resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'oura_profile_get', which likely overlaps, preventing a higher score.

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 mentions the required scope ('Requires the personal scope'), which gives context for when the tool is usable. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'oura_profile_get' or 'oura_data_inventory', limiting its utility.

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