Get WHOOP Body Measurements

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by naming the required OAuth scope and flagging the output is not medical advice. It does not, however, surface the privacy_mode=raw escalation contract that lives only in the 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences that each carry weight: purpose and returned fields first, then the scope prerequisite, then the disclaimer. No redundant or filler text.

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, auth scope, and the medical disclaimer. A brief note on privacy_mode/raw behavior or the response_format default would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing essential is missing for a simple read 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?

Schema coverage is 67% and the description contributes no parameter detail, so it neither duplicates nor compensates. privacy_mode and explicit_user_intent are well described in the schema, but response_format has no description and the tool text offers nothing to fill that gap.

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 ('Get') and resource ('body measurements') and enumerates exactly what is returned (height, weight, max heart rate), which cleanly separates it from the other whoop_get_* tools. An agent can identify the tool's output 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?

Usage is implied by the resource name, and the required scope (read:body_measurement) hints at when it is callable, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for related data (e.g., get_profile). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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