WHOOP MCP Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description usefully adds 'Does not read WHOOP or expose secrets,' which distinguishes it from the data-reading siblings. It doesn't describe the structure of the explanation (deferrable to the existing output schema), so it lands just short of top marks.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the topics covered and followed by the key non-behavioral clarification. No wasted words, though the topic list is slightly dense.

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?

For a zero-required-param informational tool with an output schema already describing returns, the description covers what is needed. The missing piece is disambiguation from the other informational siblings, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

One optional parameter (response_format) with 0% schema description coverage. The enum values are self-explanatory (markdown/json), but the description never mentions the parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Explain') and resource (WHOOP capabilities), and enumerates the topics covered. It clearly is not a data-fetching tool, but it doesn't distinguish itself from other informational siblings like whoop_agent_manifest, whoop_quickstart, or whoop_data_inventory.

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?

There is no 'use this when' guidance or comparison to the several other meta/informational tools in the sibling list. An agent seeing whoop_capabilities, whoop_quickstart, whoop_agent_manifest, and whoop_data_inventory side by side gets no routing signal.

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