WHOOP Connection Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: it performs no WHOOP network call and never exposes secrets, which is meaningful for a credentials-adjacent diagnostic. It stops short of describing output detail, but that is partly covered by the output 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?

Two tightly written sentences with the readiness scope front-loaded and the safety caveat second. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. The description covers what is checked and the key behavioral boundaries (no network, no secret exposure). The one gap is the undocumented client/response_format parameters, which the description never touches.

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 0% for two optional parameters, and the description mentions neither 'client' nor 'response_format'. Both are enums with defaults, so they are somewhat self-describing, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap the way a low-coverage tool should.

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 ('Check') and enumerates the exact resources being verified: env vars, token file, Node version, privacy mode and cache readiness. An agent can tell this is a local readiness/diagnostic probe rather than a data fetch. It does not explicitly name the overlapping sibling whoop_cache_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the content ('ready' readiness check), and the exclusion 'Does not call WHOOP' signals when this is appropriate versus data tools. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no stated prerequisites, and no routing against whoop_cache_status, which overlaps on the cache check.

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