Oura Heart Rate

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the need for a specific OAuth scope ('Requires heartrate scope') and including a disclaimer ('Not medical advice'), which are beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence followed by two brief phrases. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides necessary context (scope, disclaimer). Every part earns its place with no wasted words.

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 and the tool's straightforward nature (listing time-series data), the description is largely sufficient. It could elaborate slightly on what 'heart-rate time-series records' entail, but the output schema covers return values. The description adequately combines with annotations and schema for a complete picture.

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?

With 89% schema description coverage, the schema itself documents nearly all parameters. The description does not add further meaning to parameters; it only provides a general statement about heart rate records. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 lists Oura heart-rate time-series records, specifying conditions ('where the user's ring and membership expose them') and scope requirement. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like oura_list_daily_activity by focusing specifically on heart rate data.

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 heart rate data retrieval but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like oura_list_daily_activity or oura_list_sleep. It does mention the required 'heartrate scope,' which is a prerequisite, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool comparisons.

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