Get WHOOP Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds genuine context by disclosing the required read:profile scope, but says nothing about the privacy_mode/raw escalation path 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 tight sentences with the core purpose and prerequisite front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity is also the source of its gaps rather than a sign of surgical precision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the behavioral profile. What remains missing is any disambiguation from the duplicate-looking sibling whoop_profile_get and any hint about the privacy override parameters — gaps an agent must resolve by inspecting other tools.

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%, below the 80% threshold where the schema alone would justify a baseline 3. The description contributes zero parameter information, and response_format is undocumented in both the schema and description, while the privacy_mode=raw / explicit_user_intent=true coupling is left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Get the authenticated user's basic WHOOP profile'), which is clear on its own. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling whoop_profile_get, leaving the agent unable to tell which of the two to call.

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 names a required scope ('read:profile'), but a scope prerequisite is not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to use this tool versus whoop_profile_get, whoop_profile_update, or whoop_data_inventory, all of which overlap in the profile domain.

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