WHOOP Demo

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the payload shapes are 'verified against the real tools by a build gate,' which tells the agent the demo output is a reliable parser target. It does not say whether the demo requires auth or is fully static, which is the remaining gap.

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, no filler: the first states what is returned and why, the second supplies the trust guarantee. Front-loaded with the payload contract, which is the thing an agent needs first.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does name the three payload types the caller will receive. The only real omission is the response_format parameter, which leaves a small hole for a tool an agent may call to shape its own parser.

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% and there is one parameter (response_format, enum markdown|json) that the description never mentions. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not explain what response_format does or which value to pick.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Returns realistic example payloads' of three named tools. It explicitly differentiates itself from the real siblings (whoop_daily_summary, whoop_wellness_context, whoop_list_recoveries) by positioning itself as the pre-flight preview rather than the live call, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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?

'before calling real WHOOP APIs' gives a clear trigger condition for using this tool instead of the live ones. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a statement of cost/latency tradeoffs, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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