WHOOP Weekly Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it is a workflow tool that compares windows, mentions 'when available' for prior data, and describes output scope ('action candidates', 'next-week success metrics'). No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose. The first sentence is packed with specifics (recovery, sleep, strain, etc.), and the second adds context about comparison and intended use. No filler or redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists and parameter descriptions are present, the description covers the essential context: what the review includes, the window comparison, intended use, and non-medical scope. A minor gap is the lack of detail on edge cases (e.g., missing prior data), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a moderately complex workflow 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 description coverage is 75% with all four parameters having descriptions. The description's mention of 'compares a recent window against a prior window' loosely aligns with days/compare_days, but it does not add technical detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 a specific action ('Build a weekly WHOOP operating review') and enumerates the included components (recovery, sleep, strain, workouts, bottlenecks, action candidates, success metrics). This distinguishes it from raw data retrieval siblings like whoop_list_sleeps or whoop_list_workouts, and the 'weekly' aspect differentiates it from daily_summary.

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 indicates intended use for 'coaching and agent workflows' and excludes 'medical diagnosis', providing clear context. It also notes the tool compares a recent window against a prior window, implying when it is appropriate. However, it does not name alternatives or specify when to prefer a simpler tool, so it stops short of full distinction.

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