WHOOP Recovery Trend

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it explains the tool fetches WHOOP v2 records, computes statistics, and stores nothing. It details the slope calculation (least-squares fit) and direction categories. Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive; description reinforces and adds detail.

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 concise and well-structured: first paragraph explains the aggregation scope, second paragraph details the output metrics and computation. No extraneous information; each sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool's read-only nature, its output schema (implied by context), and the description's thorough explanation of return structure and computation, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, usage, and limitations (not medical advice).

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description itself adds little to parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., days min 2 for slope is in schema). The description could have elaborated on timezone usage or response_format, but the schema is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool aggregates WHOOP recovery metrics over N days into a trend with specific outputs (avg, min, max, slope, direction). It distinguishes from raw data paging and mentions it's not medical advice. Among siblings, it is distinct from whoop_sleep_trend.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to answer ... without paging the raw collection yourself', indicating when to use it. It also describes the tool as read-only and not storing data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though sibling tools like whoop_list_recoveries are implied.

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