oura_get_readiness_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context about contributor sub-scores (0-100), example interpretation, and default window. No contradictions. Could be slightly improved by clarifying output format (CSV vs JSON) but overall strong.

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?

Very concise with clear, front-loaded structure. First sentence states purpose and usage, second gives interpretation guidance, third lists columns. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 has optional parameters, output schema present, and annotations present, the description is complete. It explains purpose, usage, data meaning, and defaults without needing to duplicate schema or output details.

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 100% so parameters are already documented. The description reinforces defaults (30-day window, ISO format) but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides daily readiness with each contributor broken out, explaining why readiness changed. It directly contrasts with sibling tool oura_get_daily_summary, making its unique value explicit.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool when oura_get_daily_summary shows a readiness change and the driver is needed. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, distinguishing it from alternatives.

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