WHOOP Daily Summary

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it is 'privacy-conscious,' 'does not provide medical advice,' 'does not store data locally,' and 'computes a defensive baseline' — real behavioral traits not derivable from the structured fields. It stops short of disclosing auth needs or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by operational and disclaimer context. No filler or repetition; every clause carries information, though the second sentence 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, yet it still names the payload categories (readiness, sleep, load, diagnostics, action candidates). Combined with the data sources and privacy/data-handling notes, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; the only gap is explicit sibling routing.

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 67%, so the schema documents two of three parameters (days, timezone) with detail; the description adds no per-parameter syntax or format guidance and only loosely hints at a lookback window via 'recent' and 'baseline.' Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most of the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Build a ... daily performance summary from WHOOP recovery, sleep, cycle and workout data') and enumerates the source domains it aggregates. The word 'daily' implicitly separates it from the sibling whoop_weekly_summary, but no other alternatives are named explicitly.

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 says it is a 'workflow tool' that 'returns readiness, sleep, load, diagnostic signals and concrete action candidates,' which implies the usage context (a consolidated daily snapshot rather than raw lists). However, it never states when to prefer this over whoop_weekly_summary, whoop_recovery_trend, or the individual list tools, leaving the routing to inference.

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