Oura Sleep Periods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the scope requirement and a medical disclaimer, which are useful behavioral insights beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail pagination behavior or how the tool handles large datasets, though parameters like limit and all_pages are in the schema.

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: two sentences covering purpose, requirement, and disclaimer. No filler or repetition. Front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 complexity (9 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers purpose, scope requirement, and a disclaimer. It could mention that results include sleep stages and timing, but the output schema likely details that. No critical gaps for a list tool with good annotations and schema.

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 high (89%), so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why after/before are converted to Oura start_date/end_date or how privacy_mode works. Baseline 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 'List detailed Oura sleep period records, including sleep stages and timing where available.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (sleep period records), and details (stages, timing). It also mentions the required OAuth scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like oura_list_daily_sleep which likely provide daily summaries.

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 provides a prerequisite: 'Requires the daily scope (Oura has no separate sleep OAuth scope).' It also includes a disclaimer: 'Not medical advice.' While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the mention of 'detailed' records implies when to use this tool over oura_list_daily_sleep. More explicit guidance on when not to use it would elevate the score.

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