WHOOP Recoveries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the required 'read:recovery' scope, the conditional return fields (score, HRV, RHR, SpO2, skin temperature when scored), and a medical disclaimer. This exceeds the minimal safety profile provided by annotations.

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 sentences, zero fluff, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: sorting behavior, return fields, and usage prerequisites.

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?

Given the output schema exists and schema descriptions cover parameters well, the description captures the essential semantics: what is returned, when fields are present, and the required scope. It does not explain pagination details or privacy modes, but those are covered in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for a list tool with strong annotations.

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 89%, so the schema already documents almost all parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('WHOOP recoveries') and a precise ordering ('sorted by related sleep start time descending'). It distinguishes from siblings like whoop_get_cycle_recovery or whoop_recovery_trend by focusing on a list operation with sorting.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond a required scope. It implies usage (listing recoveries) but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as whoop_get_cycle_recovery or whoop_recovery_trend.

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