Get WHOOP OAuth URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds that the tool 'does not read or modify WHOOP data,' which goes beyond the annotations by indicating it performs no WHOOP API reads at all—only URL generation. This is useful behavioral context not fully captured by the structured hints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value: purpose, safety, and usage timing. No wasted words—compact yet informative.

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 tool is simple with an output schema present, so return format is covered elsewhere. The description covers purpose, non-data-touching behavior, and when to invoke it. It doesn't mention the next step (exchanging the code), but the sibling list includes whoop_exchange_code, making the flow inferable. Complete enough for a low-risk, read-only tool.

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?

The schema has high coverage (67%) and includes descriptive text for each parameter (e.g., 'Optional OAuth state value generated by the caller', 'Defaults to all read-only WHOOP scopes used by this server'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a WHOOP OAuth authorization URL.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-fetching tools, and the added note 'This does not read or modify WHOOP data' further differentiates it as a pure URL generator.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this first when no local token exists.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases where a token already exists. The context is clear enough for an agent to sequence it early in the OAuth flow.

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