Oura Weekly Recovery Review

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds 'Read-only and non-medical' which reinforces safety and adds non-medical disclaimer. No contradictions; the description provides modest additional context beyond annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads key information (weekly scorecard components, read-only, non-medical). Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description names output components but does not explain the comparison feature (compare_days parameter) or clarify that 'days' can exceed 7, making it not strictly weekly. With output schema present, return values are covered, but missing context about parameter interplay leaves 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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation without extra value.

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 builds a weekly Oura scorecard with specific components (readiness, sleep, activity, HRV, bottlenecks, actions). It distinguishes from siblings like oura_daily_summary and includes the read-only and non-medical nature, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 weekly use but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like oura_daily_summary or oura_wellness_context. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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