Get WHOOP OAuth URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: that the call has no data side effects and that its trigger condition is the absence of a local token. It doesn't mention whether scopes changes affect downstream grants, but the added behavioral signal is real.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, each carrying distinct information (what it does, what it doesn't do, when to call it). No filler.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, side-effect profile, and sequencing for a zero-required-param tool. The one gap is the missing pointer to the exchange step that consumes this URL.

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 coverage is 67% with state and scopes well documented (scopes even explains the default). The description contributes nothing about parameters, so it neither compensates for the undocumented response_format nor adds syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Generate a WHOOP OAuth authorization URL') and immediately scopes it negatively ('does not read or modify WHOOP data'), which separates it from the data-fetching siblings. An agent can tell this is a URL builder, not a data tool, without opening the 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?

'Use this first when no local token exists' gives an explicit precondition for choosing this tool over the auth-adjacent siblings. It stops short of naming whoop_exchange_code as the follow-on step, so the agent must infer the pairing rather than being routed to it.

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