WHOOP Weekly Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is a composite workflow tool that conditionally 'compares a recent window against a prior window when available,' and that its output is a coaching-oriented review rather than a diagnosis. It stops short of describing pagination or output size, but the output schema carries return structure.

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 short paragraphs with the payload enumeration front-loaded and the comparative-behavior/use-case caveat second. Every sentence earns its place; only minor cost is the fairly long content list that could be trimmed.

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?

For a read-only composite workflow tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained) and rich annotations, the description covers what it builds, how it compares windows, and who it's for. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Three of four parameters are documented in the schema (days, timezone, compare_days), giving 75% coverage, and the undocumented response_format is a self-evident markdown/json enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. what disabling comparison or choosing json changes), so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 — 'Build a weekly WHOOP operating review' — and enumerates the included sections (recovery, sleep, strain, workouts, bottlenecks, action candidates, metrics), so an agent knows exactly what composite artifact it produces. It distinguishes itself from point-list siblings implicitly via 'weekly' scope and the comparative workflow framing, though it never names an alternative tool outright.

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?

Gives a usage context and a negative bound — 'intended for coaching and agent workflows, not medical diagnosis' — which is genuine guidance. However it never points to the alternative to use instead (e.g. whoop_daily_summary for a single day, or the trend tools for a narrower query), leaving sibling selection to inference.

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