oura_get_baselines

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description goes well beyond by disclosing data sparsity ('IMPORTANT — sparsity: vo2_max is a measurement EVENT...'), explaining blank rows, and detailing the clinical meaning of pulse_wave_velocity_m_s. It also notes compatibility requirements for some metrics.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, then a detailed column listing, and important usage notes. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise without losing essential detail.

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?

The description covers the purpose, parameters, return format (CSV columns), and critical caveats (sparsity, PWV interpretation). Given the presence of an output schema, it does not need to repeat return value details. The level of detail is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, with both parameters already well-described in the input schema. The description adds value by noting the default 90-day window and the inclusive nature of end_date, but does not fundamentally extend understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states 'Slow-moving health baselines: SpO2, breathing, arterial stiffness, VO2 max.' which specifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on long-term trend data versus other Oura metrics like stress, sleep, or workouts.

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 provides clear use case: 'Use to track long-term vascular and aerobic health alongside training history.' It mentions the default window of 90 days, which guides usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings.

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